The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Violent on January 13, 2009, 04:12:30 AM

Title: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Violent on January 13, 2009, 04:12:30 AM
I've put together a seven minute piece which asks the question "Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?":

Although this possibility is rarely postulated, and although when it is put forth it always receives scathing incredulity, even from the most skeptical conspiracy theorists, I am certain that the canon of nuclear/atomic explosion footage shown to the public starting in the 1940s was falsified from the beginning.

Nuclear bombs are the cornerstone of the world's military-industrial control structure. It is therefore necessary that, if the current order is to be maintained, everyone must believe in them.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on January 13, 2009, 04:47:50 AM
The theory behind the technology is sound. While I can't be certain about the physical existence of them I am fairly confident that they exist, after all even if the videos were faked, the damage to Hiroshima wasn't.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Moonlit on January 13, 2009, 10:51:25 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 13, 2009, 03:59:14 PM
So E=mc2, through the process of nuclear fission, is wrong? Can you prove that atoms can no longer split apart?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on January 13, 2009, 04:38:34 PM
I somehow doubt japan would have surrendered if that was fake.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Johannes on January 13, 2009, 07:53:35 PM
Can you prove that atoms even exist?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2009, 08:05:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on January 13, 2009, 08:18:43 PM
The big difference I see here is horoshima seems like its grounds have been blasted clean. Which would be the only difference I expect between a huge hot blast and a huge burn.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 13, 2009, 08:41:35 PM
also the one of the first ways we found out that the Russians had the bomb was then it registered on seismographs, and it is the reason that coal miners need tostagger their blasts instead of setting it all of at once so Russia did not think the US was setting off a Nuclear Bomb
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on January 13, 2009, 08:42:55 PM
also the one of the first ways we found out that the Russians had the bomb was then it registered on seismographs, and it is the reason that coal miners need tostagger their blasts instead of setting it all of at once so Russia did not think the US was setting off a Nuclear Bomb

So wait, it could have been faked by setting off underground charges at once?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 13, 2009, 11:17:04 PM
also the one of the first ways we found out that the Russians had the bomb was then it registered on seismographs, and it is the reason that coal miners need tostagger their blasts instead of setting it all of at once so Russia did not think the US was setting off a Nuclear Bomb

So wait, it could have been faked by setting off underground charges at once?
the charges the set off though look nothing like a nuclear bomb but they do set off similar seismic waves so yes that portion could have been faked the all of the visible signs could not be faked that way. unless you wanted to pile tons and tons of TNT and set it off all at the same exact moment
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Violent on January 14, 2009, 02:30:09 AM
Jack that's interesting you should mention E=mc? - check this out: According to Einstein mass and energy are "different manifestations of the same thing," and "very small amounts of mass may be converted in to a very large amount of energy." Now this all sounds very scientific, but it's very important to note its title: The Theory of *Relativity* -which is dissolutionist- and next and perhaps even more revealing is the spoken equation itself, which is apparently Masonic / Kabalist: E is equal to mc-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light." We've got the Square mentioned repeatedly. Light is given a velocity and is squared.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Violent on January 14, 2009, 02:35:05 AM
Tom thanks for the excellent link to the Hiroshima still photograph. It's obvious from the picture that they burnt down a large section of the city in both Hiroshima and Tokyo, using whatever method. All brick buildings are left standing intact save for apparently missing windows.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on January 14, 2009, 04:45:45 AM
Jack that's interesting you should mention E=mc? - check this out: According to Einstein mass and energy are "different manifestations of the same thing," and "very small amounts of mass may be converted in to a very large amount of energy." Now this all sounds very scientific, but it's very important to note its title: The Theory of *Relativity* -which is dissolutionist- and next and perhaps even more revealing is the spoken equation itself, which is apparently Masonic / Kabalist: E is equal to mc-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light." We've got the Square mentioned repeatedly. Light is given a velocity and is squared.

Well yes, that's how nuclear power stations work. Even if you deny the existence of nukes then power stations still prove that the equation is sound.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 15, 2009, 01:06:03 AM
Jack that's interesting you should mention E=mc? - check this out: According to Einstein mass and energy are "different manifestations of the same thing," and "very small amounts of mass may be converted in to a very large amount of energy."
Nuclear fission was the true answer to E=mc2. Before that, and although he did derive the equation, Einstein never thought that it is possible for mass to "split" and release energy.  Scientists tried many procedures to release energy from mass directly using equipments; however, they always get less energy from the mass than the amount of energy they actually put into the equipment.

The bold part is why nuclear weapons are allowed to exist.

Now this all sounds very scientific, but it's very important to note its title: The Theory of *Relativity* -which is dissolutionist- and next and perhaps even more revealing is the spoken equation itself, which is apparently Masonic / Kabalist: E is equal to mc-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light." We've got the Square mentioned repeatedly. Light is given a velocity and is squared.
Right, it's a theory of relativity, or a theory that studies the FoR of moving objects relative to the speed of light. What's your point?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Edtharan on January 15, 2009, 03:23:11 AM
Jack that's interesting you should mention E=mc? - check this out: According to Einstein mass and energy are "different manifestations of the same thing," and "very small amounts of mass may be converted in to a very large amount of energy." Now this all sounds very scientific, but it's very important to note its title: The Theory of *Relativity* -which is dissolutionist- and next and perhaps even more revealing is the spoken equation itself, which is apparently Masonic / Kabalist: E is equal to mc-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light." We've got the Square mentioned repeatedly. Light is given a velocity and is squared.
E=MC2 is the simplified version and assumes no energy other than what is in the mass itself. The proper equation is:

E2 - (pc)2 = (m0c2)2

E is energy
p is momentum
m0 is the rest mass of the object
c is the speed of light

As you can see, this is not the simple equation that you claim is Masonic/Kabalist.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2009, 04:11:04 AM
The big difference I see here is horoshima seems like its grounds have been blasted clean. Which would be the only difference I expect between a huge hot blast and a huge burn.

There are also entire blocks which look swept away clean in the Tokyo image.

But if we go down to lower altitudes we can see that there's obviously a lot of rubble in a majority of the Hiroshima aftermath photos. Hardly "blasted clean."

http://www.earthstation1.com/WWIIPics/Japan/ResidentialStreetInHiroshimaAfterA-Bombing.jpg
http://www.annefrankguide.com/en-GB/content/hiroshima-2f.jpg
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/12/31/hiroshima_wideweb__430x323.jpg
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on January 15, 2009, 07:13:12 AM
Why can't the results of a nuclear blast look similar to the results of extensive firebombing?  I imagine they both would look very much alike.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Moon squirter on January 15, 2009, 08:56:50 AM
If nukes are a conspiracy, then the so-called Hiroshima shadows (http://images.google.co.uk/images?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=vLq&q=hiroshima+shadows&btnG=Search+Images) must also have been faked, because the "flash" (photon energy) required to make these is not possible with conventional explosives.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mr. Ireland on January 15, 2009, 01:26:18 PM
Tom, stop with the devils advocate.  It doesn't look good for your FE stance.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cmdshft on January 15, 2009, 01:53:18 PM
If nukes are a conspiracy, then the so-called Hiroshima shadows (http://images.google.co.uk/images?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=vLq&q=hiroshima+shadows&btnG=Search+Images) must also have been faked, because the "flash" (photon energy) required to make these is not possible with conventional explosives.

Agree'd. Fire doesn't do this: http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bomb/shadow2.gif
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Johannes on January 15, 2009, 04:19:41 PM
In nuclear physics the M in E=MC^2 is not mass, rather it is the mass defect? Correct?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 15, 2009, 04:49:43 PM
There are two derivations of E=mc2 in inertial frames of reference. The first one is E=m0c2, in which m0 is invariant (rest) mass. The second one is E=mrelc2, in which mrel is relativistic mass. "M" (capitalized) also means relativistic mass. In a letter, Einstein said he did not like the idea of relativistic mass.

Invariant mass "m" is the mass we all use from Newtonian physics to most modern physics, at the basic level of course.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on January 15, 2009, 04:54:36 PM
So relativistic mass could vary according to what? the amount of energy in it? Or it's velocity relative to the observer?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 15, 2009, 05:00:14 PM
Relativistic mass varies according to energy in the system (mrel = E/c2). Of course, when an object moves, it gains energy and momentum.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: John Jackson on January 15, 2009, 05:08:19 PM
(http://)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on January 15, 2009, 06:32:14 PM
Relativistic mass varies according to energy in the system (mrel = E/c2). Of course, when an object moves, it gains energy and momentum.

So would the relativistic mass only increase at m=e/c2 to stay with conservation of energy?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 15, 2009, 06:55:12 PM
Relativistic mass is just another term for energy. In an isolated system, since energy is conserved, relativistic mass will also be conserved relative to any inertial observers.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: John Jackson on January 15, 2009, 07:30:46 PM
The term 'relativistic mass' is obsolete and has no physical meaning. What you reffer to as 'rest mass' is actually simply called mass. The formula E = m*c^2 simply tells that mass of a body is proportional to its energy content.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 15, 2009, 07:32:11 PM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 16, 2009, 12:52:24 AM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2009, 01:13:38 AM
Quote
Tom, stop with the devils advocate.  It doesn't look good for your FE stance.

Military propaganda is a weapon just as powerful as any real weapon.

Agree'd. Fire doesn't do this: http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bomb/shadow2.gif

Did the Japanese take those pictures, or did the US Military take those pictures?

Quote

Plenty of conventional bombs make mushroom clouds.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 16, 2009, 01:23:02 AM
Agree'd. Fire doesn't do this: http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bomb/shadow2.gif

Did the Japanese take those pictures, or did the US Military take those pictures?

Quote

.
There is a big difference in the size of the mushroom cloud. I can set off a little bit of gunpowder and it will make a mushroom cloud

Plenty of conventional bombs make mushroom clouds.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: John Jackson on January 16, 2009, 06:42:40 AM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 16, 2009, 12:23:50 PM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 16, 2009, 12:35:21 PM
Replace "mass" with energy.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Johannes on January 16, 2009, 01:44:20 PM
LOL, these round earthers know absolutely no physics then they tell us our theories are impossible.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 16, 2009, 01:53:04 PM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
There is a reason I put mass in quotes. If you want to calculate gravitational acceleration by only using energy go right ahead I on the other hand will do it correctly and calculate its relativistic mass before I calculate its acceleration.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: John Jackson on January 16, 2009, 02:28:47 PM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
your retarted. [/physics]
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 16, 2009, 03:22:18 PM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
your retarted. [/physics]
Study physics further than what Wiki will teach you
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: John Jackson on January 16, 2009, 03:25:09 PM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
your retarted. [/physics]
Study physics further than what Wiki will teach you
Stop talking to yourself.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 16, 2009, 03:32:24 PM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
your retarted. [/physics]
Study physics further than what Wiki will teach you
Stop talking to yourself.
Here let me help you, I know it is hard to get away from wiki

http://www.setileague.org/askdr/photon.htm (http://www.setileague.org/askdr/photon.htm)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 16, 2009, 03:58:18 PM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: John Jackson on January 16, 2009, 05:38:30 PM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
The only time when I see it used where it has meaning is when you are mixing gravitation and light and relativistic mass is a term that works for the "mass" the you would use for light
The only problem is that light has no mass and travels in a gravitational field as a massless particle.
But you must assign a "mass" to light based upon it frequency when calculating its gravitational effect
your retarted. [/physics]
Study physics further than what Wiki will teach you
Stop talking to yourself.
Here let me help you, I know it is hard to get away from wiki

http://www.setileague.org/askdr/photon.htm (http://www.setileague.org/askdr/photon.htm)
The webpage you linked does not address the question correctly.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 16, 2009, 05:40:50 PM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
g=Gm/r2
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: John Jackson on January 16, 2009, 05:51:30 PM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
g=Gm/r2
you're obtuse.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 16, 2009, 06:00:05 PM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
g=Gm/r2
And you're applying a relativistic situation into a non-relativistic equation because...?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 16, 2009, 06:02:52 PM
I seriously don't know why people are still using "relativistic mass" these days, when we can just easily refer to it as energy.
g=Gm/r2
And you're applying a relativistic situation into a non-relativistic equation because...?
that is a relativistic equation
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 16, 2009, 06:04:26 PM
Uh, no. M != m

The "m" in that equation is invariant mass, not relativistic mass.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: John Jackson on January 16, 2009, 06:06:52 PM
'cbarnett97', you obviously have not passed any course in General Relativity, so, please, either read some more, or stop posting on this matter.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 16, 2009, 06:13:54 PM
Uh, no. M != m

The "m" in that equation is invariant mass, not relativistic mass.
and what is the invariant mass of a photon?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 16, 2009, 06:14:27 PM
0.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: John Jackson on January 16, 2009, 06:28:46 PM
Perhaps this link would be of some use to see how propagation of light in a weak gravitational field is treated:

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Physics/8-962Spring-2006/780453EB-413B-46A2-84AC-EAC6DBB34126/0/glens.pdf (http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Physics/8-962Spring-2006/780453EB-413B-46A2-84AC-EAC6DBB34126/0/glens.pdf)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 16, 2009, 10:36:47 PM
Perhaps this link would be of some use to see how propagation of light in a weak gravitational field is treated:

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Physics/8-962Spring-2006/780453EB-413B-46A2-84AC-EAC6DBB34126/0/glens.pdf (http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Physics/8-962Spring-2006/780453EB-413B-46A2-84AC-EAC6DBB34126/0/glens.pdf)
And that shows how relativistic mass is an outdated term how?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MrKappa on January 17, 2009, 02:58:56 AM
This professor at Berkley seems to think that Calutrons were discovered when the UN went after Saddam Hussein...

A calutron being the device used to refine Uranium into a usable nuclear weapons grade material.


Interesting... jmo...

"Nukes 4of6: Enrichment, Nuclear Iraq and Nuclear Reactors" - Richard Muller


Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: khastman on January 18, 2009, 03:45:31 PM
Uhh, you do realize that hundreds of nuclear bombs have been tested around the world and that north korea has nowhere near the ability to create any CGI.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2009, 08:47:52 PM
Uhh, you do realize that hundreds of nuclear bombs have been tested around the world and that north korea has nowhere near the ability to create any CGI.

Why would North Korea need to create CGI?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mythix Profit on January 18, 2009, 10:10:31 PM
I've met certain persons who "worked" at the aledged Test Site out here who will swear, on a bible and a fifth, that all that "nukyilar bombs" is a big hoax and that the top Brass spend the budget on hookers and blow here in Sin C.

But then; how do you explain that radioactive Elvis clone roaming the desert wastes preying on unwary tourists?

Tom, you seem to be a near complete fuckin' tool.


"When the the inescapable truth of the lie permeates your every thought, then you are fully brain-jacked by the agents of the Contunuous Conspiracy conspiracy and may be irrevocably mentally comprimised."
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Violent on January 23, 2009, 08:15:21 AM
Check out this revealing article about fake Russian nuclear bombs: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19981118/ai_n14192997

It proves that fake nuclear bombs do exist.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Ziosin on January 23, 2009, 09:08:56 AM
Nukes exist. The damage and radiation levels (and sicknesses within survivors) prove so. No single bomb in existence could ever match radiation levels or destruction scales that high except the nuke. And it IS true that the plane that dropped the nuke, only dropped one single bomb.


Dunno if this counts as proof either:
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Violent on January 24, 2009, 01:12:06 AM
"Nukes exist. The damage and radiation levels (and sicknesses within survivors) prove so."

I have not seen: damage, radiation levels, sickness, with my own eyes. Have you?

Most of us have seen these things on television, or in photos.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 24, 2009, 01:17:31 AM
"Nukes exist. The damage and radiation levels (and sicknesses within survivors) prove so."

I have not seen: damage, radiation levels, sickness, with my own eyes. Have you?

Most of us have seen these things on television, or in photos.
Yes I have
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on January 24, 2009, 04:09:33 AM
Uhh, you do realize that hundreds of nuclear bombs have been tested around the world and that north korea has nowhere near the ability to create any CGI.

Because Korea is a primitive civilization barely out of the dark ages  ::)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 24, 2009, 10:55:27 AM
I have not seen: damage, radiation levels, sickness, with my own eyes. Have you?
This is a common logical fallacy. I guess, by your argument, atoms and bacteria do not exist.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 24, 2009, 07:15:33 PM
This is a common logical fallacy. I guess, by your argument, atoms and bacteria do not exist.


There are a couple things wrong with your statement.

First of all, we can see bacteria with a classroom microscope.

Secondly, there is no empirical evidence that atoms exist. No one has seen what exists within an electron shell. What we know as atoms could easily be something entirely different: http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 24, 2009, 07:18:13 PM
This is a common logical fallacy. I guess, by your argument, atoms and bacteria do not exist.

First of all, we can see bacteria with a classroom microscope.

Secondly, there is no empirical evidence that atoms exist. What we know as atoms could easily be something entirely different: http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
Who made the microscopes?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 24, 2009, 07:25:49 PM
There are a couple things wrong with your statement.

First of all, we can see bacteria with a classroom microscope.
:-\

That's why his argument is a logical fallacy. Just because he doesn't see radiation levels/damage with his own eyes, doesn't mean nukes do not exist.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 24, 2009, 07:33:50 PM
Quote
:-\

That's why his argument is a logical fallacy. Just because he doesn't see radiation levels/damage with his own eyes, doesn't mean nukes do not exist.

I believe he was saying that there is no empirical evidence for nukes, which there isn't.

Your phrase "just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" sounds like some lame excuse for the existence of ghosts.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jack on January 24, 2009, 07:50:49 PM
I believe he was saying that there is no empirical evidence for nukes, which there isn't.
Read:

I have not seen: damage, radiation levels, sickness, with my own eyes. Have you?

So nukes don't exist just because he, some random guy on the internet, never saw the results of a nuclear strike in his life? Other people might have seen the results, but not him. What makes him so credible that I should accept his argument as the reason why nukes don't exist?

Your phrase "just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" sounds like some lame excuse for the existence of ghosts.
We never know, as ghosts might exist; we just probably don't have the technology to detect them without relying on our naked eyes. Same thing to bacteria; we can't see a bacterium with our naked eyes, but we can with a microscope.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: gjalexander on January 27, 2009, 11:10:02 AM
I agree the footage of the nuclear bomb detonations does look supsect. The back drafts which also appear quite damaging consistently appear a little too soon.

Another question I also have is surely the two halves of the uranium bomb or the sub-critical mass of plutonium in the implosion bomb, would have got a little a bit warm even though not exploded. I'd like to see what the modified half lives of those lumps of radioactive material were.

I am also sceptical about the physics supporting the A-bomb. Knowing that relativity is wrong, see my website www.webspawner.com/users/relativity (http://www.webspawner.com/users/relativity), and that the classical laws of physics are wrong also, see www.webspawner.com/users/gjalex (http://www.webspawner.com/users/gjalex), quantum physics must also fall as it is entirely dependant on the classical equations.

It is also strange that at the time they weren't even fully aware of the dangers of radiation!  :P 
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jono on February 04, 2009, 09:23:09 PM
Maybe the part where the Nuclear Bombs completely take out the communication for an area far greater than that of the actual destruction factors into this? It was very strategic, drop a bomb, and suddenly a huge part of the country has no functional telephone wires. Drop another, and chaos ensues.

It involves an incredibly top secret compression process, of course it doesn't make "sense" with the physics that we understand, or the process wouldn't be top secret anymore.

~Jono
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: iznih on February 05, 2009, 01:41:26 PM

I am also sceptical about the physics supporting the A-bomb. Knowing that relativity is wrong, see my website www.webspawner.com/users/relativity (http://www.webspawner.com/users/relativity), and that the classical laws of physics are wrong also, see www.webspawner.com/users/gjalex (http://www.webspawner.com/users/gjalex), quantum physics must also fall as it is entirely dependant on the classical equations.


i had to laugh a lot at that
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: tungs10 on February 06, 2009, 05:22:49 PM

You might as well ask, "Is nuclear energy real?"   They charge a reactor with a couple tons of fuel pellets and the reactor
turns out hundreds of megawatts of power for the next two years.  So where did that energy come from?  Those pellets
are only enriched to about 1.2% U235. Now take 2 10 pound pieces of uranium enriched to 70% U235, drive them together at supersonic speed so they don't vaporize before the chain reaction has a chance to get started - it should come as very little surprise that you would suddenly get several terajoules of energy.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on February 06, 2009, 06:17:00 PM
Jack that's interesting you should mention E=mc? - check this out: According to Einstein mass and energy are "different manifestations of the same thing," and "very small amounts of mass may be converted in to a very large amount of energy." Now this all sounds very scientific, but it's very important to note its title: The Theory of *Relativity* -which is dissolutionist- and next and perhaps even more revealing is the spoken equation itself, which is apparently Masonic / Kabalist: E is equal to mc-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light." We've got the Square mentioned repeatedly. Light is given a velocity and is squared.



If you assume that the speed of light is the same in inertial reference frames, then you are forced to conclude that, at least for inertial frames, velocities transform according the the Lorentz transformations. Now, the assumption that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames is supported by experiment and electromagnetic theory. But you mention c^2, but LIGHT isn't the real key here. SPACE AND TIME are. If you assume light has the same velocity in all inertial frames, you are saying something about space and time as much as you are saying something about light, and in turn you are saying something about the universe as a whole.

Anyway, from that, and the assumption that momentum is conserved, it is straight forward mathematically to prove that E = y mc^2, where y is the Lorentz factor, is valid (although it's usually written as E^2).


As far as c being squared... what do you think the physical units of energy ARE in the first place? Kilograms times meters/second squared. Squaring c makes PERFECT sense in an energy relation. Just like KE = (1/2)mv^2, mc^2 is the exact unit of energy.



It's actually fairly easy to derive it from the basic assumptions that the speed of light is constant in inertial frames and that momentum is conserved. I've already done nearly half of it here for you, lol.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=3152.msg609126#msg609126
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Delthan on May 06, 2009, 06:25:45 PM
Quote
:-\

That's why his argument is a logical fallacy. Just because he doesn't see radiation levels/damage with his own eyes, doesn't mean nukes do not exist.

I believe he was saying that there is no empirical evidence for nukes, which there isn't.

Your phrase "just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" sounds like some lame excuse for the existence of ghosts.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Japanese willingly conspired with their war time enemy to level two of their own cities killing hundreds of thousands of their own people and mutilitaing even more to fake the appearance of a new super weapon? What possible reason Tom? Your belief that NASA has been able to fake photographs since the sixties is quite a stretch, but the US army and Japanese being able to do it in the forties? Seriously Tom?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jesus Crotch on May 07, 2009, 01:30:50 PM

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.

Was this in ENaG, Tom?  It is utter bullshit.  In 1945, Hiroshima was home to FM Hata's  2nd Gener Army Headquarters, responsible for the defense of the southern portion of Japan.  It was an assembly area for troops, a communications hub, and a 'warehouse' city for military supplies.  There were also quite a few targets of industrial and military significance.

Nagasaki was the third larges sea port in Southern Japan, from which millions of pounds of ammunition, ships, and various military and other war supplies were distributed.  One of Mitsubishi's main factories was located here, and was bombed with conventional munitions in the months before the atomic attack.

Seriously, where do you get this crap?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: echa on May 23, 2009, 02:33:02 PM
What about the survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki that say nukes were used? No single conventional bomb could have caused that much damage. As for the video claiming they might not exist...you keep going back to saying it looks like they're zooming in on the sun. That's exactly what you would expect it to look like. Its a similar reaction happening in a nuke and in the sun(at least the early nukes which used only fission). If you're talking about newer fusion based nukes then it should look exactly like the center of the sun.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: WLO on May 26, 2009, 05:37:43 PM
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.
Demons.  The US Government summoned demons to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: kkthegrunt on June 07, 2009, 04:42:20 AM
Can you prove that atoms even exist?
We have magnets that can move signle atoms. What interests me is what makes up the stuff that makes up the stuff that makes up the stuff (and so on and so forth) of atoms. It should, theoretically, go on for infinity.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: konataizumi on June 11, 2009, 10:07:37 PM
ask the thousands that died in japan if atom bombs are fake

(http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:_4LrCSFxEDgkwM:http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3751/55174084.png)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Parsifal on June 12, 2009, 02:52:47 AM
ask the thousands that died in japan if atom bombs are fake

Which people that died in Japan? I hear 1.14 million people died in that country last year alone.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: The_Earth on June 13, 2009, 03:35:04 PM
Ask Japan, they'll tell you.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on June 13, 2009, 05:05:12 PM
Ask Japan, they'll tell you.

Japan is a country, a country is a) singular and b) incapable of speech.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: mazty88 on June 17, 2009, 07:47:46 PM
I've put together a seven minute piece which asks the question "Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?":

Although this possibility is rarely postulated, and although when it is put forth it always receives scathing incredulity, even from the most skeptical conspiracy theorists, I am certain that the canon of nuclear/atomic explosion footage shown to the public starting in the 1940s was falsified from the beginning.

Nuclear bombs are the cornerstone of the world's military-industrial control structure. It is therefore necessary that, if the current order is to be maintained, everyone must believe in them.
If they didn't exist and work, then why the fuck are countries not invading each other? You forget that each country tests out their own weapons at the cost of billions of dollars.
If they were fake, nobody would bother with them.
Really, really stupid idea.
Get your head out of the Bible, back into real life, and get yourself an education. You're a disgrace to humanity.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: elodbob on June 27, 2009, 05:47:12 PM
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.

What about the cancer? You know. how people were disfigured and got cancer from living in nagasaki, but not tokyo?

Or how people wearing dark clothing got burned only where the clothes were dark. This is consistent with photon emission of a nuclear weapon.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Guessed on June 27, 2009, 10:19:03 PM
So you're saying that after World War 2 there were no cases of cancer or deformity at all in Tokyo? That's a rather sweeping assumption.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sphericalE on July 21, 2009, 02:45:54 PM
of course nukes exist and even those who dont believe in them can still die by them.  :o
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sphericalE on July 21, 2009, 02:49:13 PM

If they didn't exist and work, then why the fuck are countries not invading each other? You forget that each country tests out their own weapons at the cost of billions of dollars.
If they were fake, nobody would bother with them.
Really, really stupid idea.
Get your head out of the Bible, back into real life, and get yourself an education. You're a disgrace to humanity.
[/quote]
Lovely way of putting it :) couldnt have said it better my self
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: SweetRiverPhil on July 25, 2009, 07:21:49 AM
you guys like to argue.

I like that.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on July 25, 2009, 08:46:17 AM
Can you prove that atoms even exist?
We have magnets that can move signle atoms. What interests me is what makes up the stuff that makes up the stuff that makes up the stuff (and so on and so forth) of atoms. It should, theoretically, go on for infinity.

I just noticed this post, to answer your question, energy.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on July 25, 2009, 09:01:08 AM
Jack that's interesting you should mention E=mc? - check this out: According to Einstein mass and energy are "different manifestations of the same thing," and "very small amounts of mass may be converted in to a very large amount of energy." Now this all sounds very scientific, but it's very important to note its title: The Theory of *Relativity* -which is dissolutionist- and next and perhaps even more revealing is the spoken equation itself, which is apparently Masonic / Kabalist: E is equal to mc-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light." We've got the Square mentioned repeatedly. Light is given a velocity and is squared.
E=MC2 is the simplified version and assumes no energy other than what is in the mass itself. The proper equation is:

E2 - (pc)2 = (m0c2)2

E is energy
p is momentum
m0 is the rest mass of the object
c is the speed of light

As you can see, this is not the simple equation that you claim is Masonic/Kabalist.
What kind of 'object' are you talking about?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on July 25, 2009, 09:03:57 AM
Any object made of mass.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on July 25, 2009, 09:06:32 AM
how do you know what the momentum of the 'object' is?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on July 25, 2009, 09:12:31 AM
how do you know what the momentum of the 'object' is?

P=mv
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on July 25, 2009, 09:12:50 AM
what is m?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on July 25, 2009, 09:14:29 AM
what is m?

A letter.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on July 25, 2009, 09:15:34 AM
how do i measure a letter?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on July 25, 2009, 09:17:51 AM
how do i measure a letter?
A ruler?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on July 25, 2009, 09:21:33 AM
but that's measuring the length of a particular occurrence of a given letter.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on July 25, 2009, 09:57:32 AM
but that's measuring the length of a particular occurrence of a given letter.

Yes.


Now could you really make a point sometime soon? Asking random questions is kind of pointless.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on July 25, 2009, 10:00:57 AM
E=MC2 is the simplified version and assumes no energy other than what is in the mass itself. The proper equation is:

E2 - (pc)2 = (m0c2)2

E is energy
p is momentum
m0 is the rest mass of the object
c is the speed of light

As you can see, this is not the simple equation that you claim is Masonic/Kabalist.

how do you know what the momentum of the 'object' is?

P=mv

What does your symbol 'm' stand for?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Delthan on July 25, 2009, 11:57:30 AM
E=MC2 is the simplified version and assumes no energy other than what is in the mass itself. The proper equation is:

E2 - (pc)2 = (m0c2)2

E is energy
p is momentum
m0 is the rest mass of the object
c is the speed of light

As you can see, this is not the simple equation that you claim is Masonic/Kabalist.

how do you know what the momentum of the 'object' is?

P=mv

What does your symbol 'm' stand for?

Mass
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on July 25, 2009, 03:43:59 PM
E=MC2 is the simplified version and assumes no energy other than what is in the mass itself. The proper equation is:

E2 - (pc)2 = (m0c2)2

E is energy
p is momentum
m0 is the rest mass of the object
c is the speed of light

As you can see, this is not the simple equation that you claim is Masonic/Kabalist.

how do you know what the momentum of the 'object' is?

P=mv

What does your symbol 'm' stand for?

Thank you, it stands for mass, P stands for momentum, v stands for velocity which is a vector quantity similar to speed but containing a direction.

Now do you have any questions that require more than a 9th grade knowledge of science?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Pongo on July 26, 2009, 02:19:10 AM
I understand why there is confusion in this thread,  I have yet to -- and nor will I -- post how I fell about it so that the rest of you may alter your opinions accordingly.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 17 November on July 26, 2009, 03:08:38 AM
If Violent ever returns, request that he repost the link for fake Russian nuclear bombs because it does not connect.  Ralph Epperson wrote a book about this, but I would like to see Violent's information.

As for Tom Bishop, I personally do not believe that most if any of the old bomb pictures are doctored because one can see from the photographs themselves that these bombs did not blow up an entire metropolitan area.  This is impossible as there is a physical limit to the extent of damage one bomb can accomplish.  Bethat as it may, Tom Bishop's overall conclusion is correct as usual.

At any rate, I think both Violent and Tom Bishop may be interested to see my thread on this same subject which has answered all of these questions and taken the subject further by proving that atoms do not even exist.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.0
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Emailed on August 20, 2009, 08:52:15 AM
http://emailsfromcrazypeople.com/2009/08/19/also-the-moon-is-made-of-cheese/#comments

apparently this topic made it to this page.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: T.P. Crockmier on August 24, 2009, 07:10:52 PM
This speculation on whether or not nuclear bombs exist is an incredible insult to the victims and victim's families of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.  It's like saying that the Columbine Shootings in Colorado were faked.  It is incredibly insensitive to anyone affected by these tragedies. 

A Flat Earth is one thing, this post took it too far.  Period.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on August 25, 2009, 07:04:02 AM
This speculation on whether or not nuclear bombs exist is an incredible insult to the victims and victim's families of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.  It's like saying that the Columbine Shootings in Colorado were faked.  It is incredibly insensitive to anyone affected by these tragedies. 

A Flat Earth is one thing, this post took it too far.  Period.

Freedom of speech, etc.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on August 25, 2009, 09:08:34 AM
This speculation on whether or not nuclear bombs exist is an incredible insult to the victims and victim's families of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. 

no it isn't. They died due to war not to advance science.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: bl4ke360 on September 13, 2009, 04:06:43 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7969902@N07/510672745/sizes/l/in/set-72157600253743362/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7969902@N07/511103951/sizes/l/in/set-72157600253743362/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7969902@N07/511287693/sizes/l/in/set-72157600253743362/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7969902@N07/511234695/sizes/l/in/set-72157600253743362/

http://zvis.com/nuclear/nukimgs.shtml




Absolute proof:

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on September 13, 2009, 07:09:09 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7969902@N07/510672745/sizes/l/in/set-72157600253743362/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7969902@N07/511103951/sizes/l/in/set-72157600253743362/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7969902@N07/511287693/sizes/l/in/set-72157600253743362/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7969902@N07/511234695/sizes/l/in/set-72157600253743362/

http://zvis.com/nuclear/nukimgs.shtml




Absolute proof:


Really? So the death star must exist too.

http://images.google.com/images?q=death%20star&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

Absolute proof:

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: bl4ke360 on September 13, 2009, 09:52:22 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7969902@N07/510672745/sizes/l/in/set-72157600253743362/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7969902@N07/511103951/sizes/l/in/set-72157600253743362/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7969902@N07/511287693/sizes/l/in/set-72157600253743362/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7969902@N07/511234695/sizes/l/in/set-72157600253743362/

http://zvis.com/nuclear/nukimgs.shtml




Absolute proof:


Really? So the death star must exist too.

http://images.google.com/images?q=death%20star&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

Absolute proof:



Maybe you wanna ask this Hiroshima survivor if nuclear bombs are real then.

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f149/74311d1248366199-hiroshima-atomic-bomb-survivor-charonboat_dot_com_hiroshima_victim.jpg
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Parsifal on September 13, 2009, 11:13:18 PM
Maybe you wanna ask this Hiroshima survivor if nuclear bombs are real then.

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f149/74311d1248366199-hiroshima-atomic-bomb-survivor-charonboat_dot_com_hiroshima_victim.jpg

If a nuclear weapon was really dropped on Hiroshima, there would be no survivors. Just shows how much you know about the subject you're trying to defend. ::)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: bl4ke360 on September 13, 2009, 11:15:12 PM
Maybe you wanna ask this Hiroshima survivor if nuclear bombs are real then.

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f149/74311d1248366199-hiroshima-atomic-bomb-survivor-charonboat_dot_com_hiroshima_victim.jpg

If a nuclear weapon was really dropped on Hiroshima, there would be no survivors. Just shows how much you know about the subject you're trying to defend. ::)

And how would you know the damage specifics of nuclear bombs in specific cities if they were never used in the first place?
Nice faulty logic there. Just what I'd expect from a flat earther.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Parsifal on September 13, 2009, 11:19:10 PM
And how would you know the damage specifics of nuclear bombs in specific cities if they were never used in the first place?
Nice faulty logic there. Just what I'd expect from a flat earther.

Nuclear bombs kill people. Isn't that the main argument against them?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: bl4ke360 on September 13, 2009, 11:24:14 PM
And how would you know the damage specifics of nuclear bombs in specific cities if they were never used in the first place?
Nice faulty logic there. Just what I'd expect from a flat earther.

Nuclear bombs kill people. Isn't that the main argument against them?

People can survive all sorts of things, your argument is irrelevant. Thousands of people have survived gunshots through the brain, does this mean bullets are also a conspiracy? It doesn't mean every person in the entire city would be dead, obviously because the blast gets less intense the further away from it. Also you have other variables to account for such as buildings.

http://www.damninteresting.com/eyewitnesses-to-hiroshima-and-nagasaki?p=522?q123

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Parsifal on September 13, 2009, 11:28:07 PM
People can survive all sorts of things, your argument is irrelevant. Thousands of people have survived gunshots through the brain, does this mean bullets are also a conspiracy? It doesn't mean every person in the entire city would be dead, obviously because the blast gets less intense the further away from it. Also you have other variables to account for such as buildings.

http://www.damninteresting.com/eyewitnesses-to-hiroshima-and-nagasaki?p=522?q123

Guns aren't intended to kill people, which is why they are tolerated in society. By contrast, a nuclear bomb is built to kill people, and if it wasn't seen to work in tests then they wouldn't use it in practice. Therefore, if people were affected by the blast but did not die, it was not a nuclear bomb which caused the explosion.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: bl4ke360 on September 13, 2009, 11:32:44 PM
People can survive all sorts of things, your argument is irrelevant. Thousands of people have survived gunshots through the brain, does this mean bullets are also a conspiracy? It doesn't mean every person in the entire city would be dead, obviously because the blast gets less intense the further away from it. Also you have other variables to account for such as buildings.

http://www.damninteresting.com/eyewitnesses-to-hiroshima-and-nagasaki?p=522?q123

Guns aren't intended to kill people, which is why they are tolerated in society. By contrast, a nuclear bomb is built to kill people, and if it wasn't seen to work in tests then they wouldn't use it in practice. Therefore, if people were affected by the blast but did not die, it was not a nuclear bomb which caused the explosion.

Your logic is just hilarious, I wish I had more room in my sig to add your post there. It's probably the stupidest reasoning I've heard in my life. Grenades used in war are also intended to kill people, but thousands of people survived grenade blasts. Using your logic, grenades couldn't possibly exist. (http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/smilies//lol.gif)

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Parsifal on September 13, 2009, 11:37:23 PM
Your logic is just hilarious, I wish I had more room in my sig to add your post there. It's probably the stupidest reasoning I've heard in my life. Grenades used in war are also intended to kill people, but thousands of people survived grenade blasts. Using your logic, grenades couldn't possibly exist. (http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/smilies//lol.gif)

Grenades don't undergo rigorous testing the way nuclear weapons are purported to. Besides, very often grenades are intended simply to maim their victims and place strain on the enemy's medical facilities.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: bl4ke360 on September 13, 2009, 11:50:13 PM
Your logic is just hilarious, I wish I had more room in my sig to add your post there. It's probably the stupidest reasoning I've heard in my life. Grenades used in war are also intended to kill people, but thousands of people survived grenade blasts. Using your logic, grenades couldn't possibly exist. (http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/smilies//lol.gif)

Grenades don't undergo rigorous testing the way nuclear weapons are purported to.

Of course because you're a weapons expert. Before Hiroshima, there wasn't even any nuclear bomb tests. Hiroshima was the first nuclear bomb ever used. However, grenades were tested hundreds to thousands of times before they were ever brought into the battlefield.
You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mrs. Peach on September 14, 2009, 12:01:01 AM
Wikipedia is your friend:

"Trinity was the first test of technology for an atomic weapon. It was conducted by the United States on July 16, 1945, at a location 35 miles (56 km) southeast of Socorro, New Mexico on the White Sands Proving Ground, headquartered near Alamogordo. Trinity was a test of an implosion-design plutonium device. Using the same conceptual design, the Fat Man device was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, on August 9. The Trinity detonation was equivalent to the explosion of around 20 kilotons of TNT and is usually considered the beginning of the Atomic Age."

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: bl4ke360 on September 14, 2009, 04:02:23 PM
Wikipedia is your friend:

"Trinity was the first test of technology for an atomic weapon. It was conducted by the United States on July 16, 1945, at a location 35 miles (56 km) southeast of Socorro, New Mexico on the White Sands Proving Ground, headquartered near Alamogordo. Trinity was a test of an implosion-design plutonium device. Using the same conceptual design, the Fat Man device was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, on August 9. The Trinity detonation was equivalent to the explosion of around 20 kilotons of TNT and is usually considered the beginning of the Atomic Age."



So since you're admitting they have been used before, what is the point of this thread?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mrs. Peach on September 14, 2009, 04:58:52 PM
I thought I giving you an opportunity to correct your post:

Of course because you're a weapons expert. Before Hiroshima, there wasn't even any nuclear bomb tests. Hiroshima was the first nuclear bomb ever used. However, grenades were tested hundreds to thousands of times before they were ever brought into the battlefield.
You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

If my opinion is the definitive answer to this thread, it's the first I've heard about it and if you choose to continue thinking that no tests were ever done, it's okay with me.  Let your error stand.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: bl4ke360 on September 14, 2009, 05:26:12 PM
I thought I giving you an opportunity to correct your post:

Of course because you're a weapons expert. Before Hiroshima, there wasn't even any nuclear bomb tests. Hiroshima was the first nuclear bomb ever used. However, grenades were tested hundreds to thousands of times before they were ever brought into the battlefield.
You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

If my opinion is the definitive answer to this thread, it's the first I've heard about it and if you choose to continue thinking that no tests were ever done, it's okay with me.  Let your error stand.


If it's a fact that tests have been done, then it proves nuclear bombs exist which makes this entire thread worthless.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mrs. Peach on September 14, 2009, 05:31:48 PM
I seem to remember a number of people on this thread that would dispute the Wikipedia article.  Are you just dismissing them all? Or are you agreeing with them?  Your 'if' leaves the question open.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: loki700 on September 14, 2009, 09:28:53 PM
Before Hiroshima, there wasn't even any nuclear bomb tests. Hiroshima was the first nuclear bomb ever used.
What?  I believe you mean the first one used in war, it was tested beforehand.  No military in its right mind would send out people on an attack with untested equipment.

As for other weapons, guns are made to kill, when the first "gonnes" were made they had one purpose and one purpose only, to kill enemy soldiers.  That being said small arms are tested much more rigorously than other weapons because they are used the most and the lives of soldiers depend most on them.  They're also much cheaper to test on.  And this was in response to robosteve.

The real sad thing is that the original poster actually has people believing the same thing, if he were alone in his ignorance i wouldn't be as depressed about this whole thing.  I also find it kind of funny that he is so critical about something when he hasn't even looked at the theory backing it up.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Violent on September 24, 2009, 01:40:56 AM
New supporting evidence that nuclear bombs might not exist:

loki700: The "theory backing it up," as you put it, is Einstein's flawed "Theory of Relativity" which is officially debunked: http://www.you.com.au/news/1121.htm
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Pete on September 24, 2009, 07:29:12 PM
New supporting evidence that nuclear bombs might not exist:

loki700: The "theory backing it up," as you put it, is Einstein's flawed "Theory of Relativity" which is officially debunked: http://www.you.com.au/news/1121.htm


Yes, because unauthenticated quotes from American POWs, who are deprived of information while in a prison camp, which are then put in a youtube video, definitely constitute proof.


All those military reports, test results, pictures, post-war fatalities report and declassified documents that anyone can look up are probably lies.  :D
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: ShnitzelKiller on October 09, 2009, 12:48:49 PM
Jack that's interesting you should mention E=mc? - check this out: According to Einstein mass and energy are "different manifestations of the same thing," and "very small amounts of mass may be converted in to a very large amount of energy." Now this all sounds very scientific, but it's very important to note its title: The Theory of *Relativity* -which is dissolutionist- and next and perhaps even more revealing is the spoken equation itself, which is apparently Masonic / Kabalist: E is equal to mc-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light." We've got the Square mentioned repeatedly. Light is given a velocity and is squared.

Well yes, that's how nuclear power stations work. Even if you deny the existence of nukes then power stations still prove that the equation is sound.

Well, he'd deny the existence of those, too.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 09:10:15 AM
Can you prove that atoms even exist?

The very fact that you are typing on a computer is proof enough.  All electronic devices are based on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and atomic theory.  Proof of their existence is well established. 
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Dr Matrix on October 17, 2009, 10:08:01 AM
I love this thread  ;D
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on October 17, 2009, 10:34:06 AM
Can you prove that atoms even exist?

The very fact that you are typing on a computer is proof enough.  All electronic devices are based on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and atomic theory.  Proof of their existence is well established. 

Can you prove anything you just said or are you parroting back what you've been told?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 03:50:02 PM
Can you prove that atoms even exist?

The very fact that you are typing on a computer is proof enough.  All electronic devices are based on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and atomic theory.  Proof of their existence is well established. 

Can you prove anything you just said or are you parroting back what you've been told?
As an Electrical Engineer, yes I can.  Any specific questions or should I just have you google a tunnel diode?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on October 17, 2009, 06:28:11 PM
Can you prove that atoms even exist?

The very fact that you are typing on a computer is proof enough.  All electronic devices are based on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and atomic theory.  Proof of their existence is well established. 

Can you prove anything you just said or are you parroting back what you've been told?
As an Electrical Engineer, yes I can.  Any specific questions or should I just have you google a tunnel diode?

I said can YOU prove any of those things. Not can you link to someone else who claims they have proved it.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 07:08:34 PM
Not in any way that you would accept, but all you need are a couple of transistors, a diode or two, a power supply, and a breadboard and you can do the experiments yourself.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on October 17, 2009, 07:36:34 PM
Not in any way that you would accept, but all you need are a couple of transistors, a diode or two, a power supply, and a breadboard and you can do the experiments yourself.

None of that would prove atoms are doing that. They may lead you to believe in atoms, but I doubt they would give you a result proving once and for all that atoms do exist in the forms we claim.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Pete on October 17, 2009, 07:41:55 PM
Not in any way that you would accept, but all you need are a couple of transistors, a diode or two, a power supply, and a breadboard and you can do the experiments yourself.

None of that would prove atoms are doing that. They may lead you to believe in atoms, but I doubt they would give you a result proving once and for all that atoms do exist in the forms we claim.

Of course, that's why its still called Atomic Theory.... But for all intents and purposes of science, we consider it fact, since the theory is consistent with all known observations and data that we currently have. (unless there's something I don't know about, in which case please correct me)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on October 17, 2009, 07:45:47 PM
Not in any way that you would accept, but all you need are a couple of transistors, a diode or two, a power supply, and a breadboard and you can do the experiments yourself.

None of that would prove atoms are doing that. They may lead you to believe in atoms, but I doubt they would give you a result proving once and for all that atoms do exist in the forms we claim.

Of course, that's why its still called Atomic Theory.... But for all intents and purposes of science, we consider it fact, since the theory is consistent with all known observations and data that we currently have. (unless there's something I don't know about, in which case please correct me)

So you admit you don't know that atoms exist?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Pete on October 17, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
Not in any way that you would accept, but all you need are a couple of transistors, a diode or two, a power supply, and a breadboard and you can do the experiments yourself.

None of that would prove atoms are doing that. They may lead you to believe in atoms, but I doubt they would give you a result proving once and for all that atoms do exist in the forms we claim.

Of course, that's why its still called Atomic Theory.... But for all intents and purposes of science, we consider it fact, since the theory is consistent with all known observations and data that we currently have. (unless there's something I don't know about, in which case please correct me)

So you admit you don't know that atoms exist?

I don't know absolutely positively for sure. But then again, I don't know that you aren't a pink unicorn. You could also be a space alien. But my theory, born out by observations and all the current knowledge I posses, would indicate that you are a human being. I could be wrong, but I'm not really worrying about the possibility that I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 07:49:21 PM
Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on October 17, 2009, 08:57:25 PM
Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Pete on October 17, 2009, 08:58:52 PM
Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

You have evidence that disproves atomic theory? I'm actually curious as to what you believe in if not atomic theory.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on October 17, 2009, 11:27:01 PM
Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

Actually, electricity and radio waves. Could you please explain how electro-magnetism works if atoms dont exist? Mmmm
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Dr Matrix on October 18, 2009, 05:10:01 AM
Actually, electricity and radio waves. Could you please explain how electro-magnetism works if atoms dont exist? Mmmm

The photon does not require the existence of atoms, see the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on October 18, 2009, 07:33:09 AM
Actually, electricity and radio waves. Could you please explain how electro-magnetism works if atoms dont exist? Mmmm

The photon does not require the existence of atoms, see the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Perhaps, but i would like to see a theory of electro-magnetism that doesnt involve atoms.  My guess is that there isnt one.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Dr Matrix on October 18, 2009, 07:34:23 AM
Perhaps, but i would like to see a theory of electro-magnetism that doesnt involve atoms.  My guess is that there isnt one.

See Maxwell's Equations.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on October 18, 2009, 10:18:14 AM
Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

You have evidence that disproves atomic theory? I'm actually curious as to what you believe in if not atomic theory.

The burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on October 18, 2009, 03:25:59 PM
Which of course is a straw man, since there is no way I could prove it to you in written form in a forum.  Except to say that the sciences of chemistry, biology, physics, and most other sciences rely on the atomic model, and if there was even a tiny error in it, it would have been noticed.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Pete on October 18, 2009, 10:20:09 PM
Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

You have evidence that disproves atomic theory? I'm actually curious as to what you believe in if not atomic theory.

The burden of proof is on you.

What? I was just honestly curious as to what you believe in, if not atomic theory. Its not my responsibility to say what you believe.  ::)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on October 18, 2009, 10:58:02 PM
Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

You have evidence that disproves atomic theory? I'm actually curious as to what you believe in if not atomic theory.

The burden of proof is on you.

That was towards your question. I don't have to disprove your theory, it is up to you to prove it.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Pete on October 18, 2009, 11:07:55 PM
Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

You have evidence that disproves atomic theory? I'm actually curious as to what you believe in if not atomic theory.

The burden of proof is on you.

That was towards your question. I don't have to disprove your theory, it is up to you to prove it.

Christ, Raist. I'm not actually trying to debate this, I'm simply curious as to what your alternate theory to Atomic Theory is, do you have some reason for not sharing your idea with us?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on October 18, 2009, 11:17:45 PM
Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

You have evidence that disproves atomic theory? I'm actually curious as to what you believe in if not atomic theory.

The burden of proof is on you.

That was towards your question. I don't have to disprove your theory, it is up to you to prove it.

Christ, Raist. I'm not actually trying to debate this, I'm simply curious as to what your alternate theory to Atomic Theory is, do you have some reason for not sharing your idea with us?

Oh, I believe in atoms. I was simply saying he does not know for sure that there are atoms.

It's kind of ridiculous to believe otherwise with the massive amount of evidence in favor of atomic theory.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Pete on October 18, 2009, 11:25:18 PM
Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

You have evidence that disproves atomic theory? I'm actually curious as to what you believe in if not atomic theory.

The burden of proof is on you.

That was towards your question. I don't have to disprove your theory, it is up to you to prove it.

Christ, Raist. I'm not actually trying to debate this, I'm simply curious as to what your alternate theory to Atomic Theory is, do you have some reason for not sharing your idea with us?

Oh, I believe in atoms. I was simply saying he does not know for sure that there are atoms.

It's kind of ridiculous to believe otherwise with the massive amount of evidence in favor of atomic theory.


This is how I feel at your leading me to think for the past 24 hours or whatever that you had some uber interesting alternate theory ---->  :'(
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on October 18, 2009, 11:26:40 PM
Hardly, and I might add that you have provided no evidence to the contrary.  However, I do make a living moving electrons (and photons, since I work with RFID) around.

You mean electricity and light. Very small amounts of them.

You have evidence that disproves atomic theory? I'm actually curious as to what you believe in if not atomic theory.

The burden of proof is on you.

That was towards your question. I don't have to disprove your theory, it is up to you to prove it.

Christ, Raist. I'm not actually trying to debate this, I'm simply curious as to what your alternate theory to Atomic Theory is, do you have some reason for not sharing your idea with us?

Oh, I believe in atoms. I was simply saying he does not know for sure that there are atoms.

It's kind of ridiculous to believe otherwise with the massive amount of evidence in favor of atomic theory.


This is how I feel at your leading me to think for the past 24 hours or whatever that you had some uber interesting alternate theory ---->  :'(

Hmm, I could go with the Greek model of the 5 elements, where everything is made up of fire, water etc.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Dr Matrix on October 18, 2009, 11:59:36 PM
Which of course is a straw man, since there is no way I could prove it to you in written form in a forum.  Except to say that the sciences of chemistry, biology, physics, and most other sciences rely on the atomic model, and if there was even a tiny error in it, it would have been noticed.

So you admit that electromagnetism works fine with or without atoms?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on October 20, 2009, 01:28:39 PM
Which of course is a straw man, since there is no way I could prove it to you in written form in a forum.  Except to say that the sciences of chemistry, biology, physics, and most other sciences rely on the atomic model, and if there was even a tiny error in it, it would have been noticed.

So you admit that electromagnetism works fine with or without atoms?
I have yet to see any compelling theory of how EM could work without atoms, so no.  But if you have some interesting idea that has somehow been missed by researchers for 200 years, then by all means explain.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Dr Matrix on October 20, 2009, 01:30:54 PM
I have yet to see any compelling theory of how EM could work without atoms, so no.  But if you have some interesting idea that has somehow been missed by researchers for 200 years, then by all means explain.

Maxwell's equations do not require atoms in order to function.  Please at least make a token effort to research the topic.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on October 20, 2009, 02:12:00 PM
I have yet to see any compelling theory of how EM could work without atoms, so no.  But if you have some interesting idea that has somehow been missed by researchers for 200 years, then by all means explain.

Maxwell's equations do not require atoms in order to function.  Please at least make a token effort to research the topic.
LOL.  You do realize that you are talking to an EE here? Yes, the equations dont require an atom in order to be correct since they are not describing the source of electromagnetism, only its interactions.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on October 20, 2009, 03:39:15 PM
You do realize that you are talking to an EE here?
Anyone could claim that.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on October 20, 2009, 05:52:04 PM
You do realize that you are talking to an EE here?
Anyone could claim that.
true true.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: ShnitzelKiller on November 19, 2009, 07:30:26 PM
I must say this was a very interesting thread.
on the subject do nuclear bombs exists? I Don't really know for sure if Nuclear BOMBS Exists but I do have it on good authority that nuclear technology does exists.
My husband is a Nuclear engineer for the US government at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Washington state. He works with the nuclear reactors that power our naval fleet. After all, did you know that they use nuclear reactors for the majority of Submarines and aircraft carriers?
I have seen in many posts that many on this site deny the existence of nuclear fission all together?
Now I am not all that knowledgeable on the scientific. But I am pretty sure that my husband has to put on those jump suits many times during his job to protect him from Nuclear Radiation, and the government does regular physicals on all the employees to be sure that they do not suffer from radiation.
My husband is not military but he is a civilian paid by the military.
Now if the technology exists could a bomb in theory exist too? not to mention there is more evidence to the positive that Nuclear bombs do exist.
Now what about other ill effects of nuclear technology and disasters? Chernobyl, Three mile island? or the Partial Melt down of NRX in Canada? Or EBR-1 in Idaho. Of course there are more...
Or the numorous russian submariens that were destroyed because of a neuclear issue of some kind....Komsomolets K-278, Kursk K-141, K-8, K-11, K-19,  K-27
K-116, K-122, K-123, K-140, (K-159 (which was a fairly recent disaster and killed 9.) K-192.

I just want to point out that there are other disasters that prove that nuclear technology does in fact exist other than Nagasaki and Hiroshima
And that the very fact that I can pay my bills and get groceries comes from what my husband does for a living, and I hardly think the government pays 72,000$ a year for him to work on keeping up a conspiracy. That is just my humble opinion.
Just wondering ...all those who have strong opinions to the contrary, have you ever gone to a nuclear facility? Because I have, and it does not look fake to me.
Oh and in regards to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I will be in Japan for 2 months with my husband in January, where he is working on a few of out ships in Yokosuka, and I will make a trip there and see the place for myself.  I HOPE to determine if it was a conspiracy BY Truman and the Hirohito Regime. How ever I find that Highly Doubtful.



No doubt you're a government conspiracy bot. Everyone knows that nuclear reactors are just cleverly disguised coal engines.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2009, 12:58:53 AM
Atoms don't necessarily exist as usually thought.

May exist as waves. (http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on November 21, 2009, 06:33:57 AM
I love it when pseudo- science tries to cloak itself in scientific terms.  Yes there is possible a particle-wave duality, but not in the way that guy is trying to suggest.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on November 21, 2009, 10:16:52 AM
I love it when pseudo- science tries to cloak itself in scientific terms.  Yes there is possible a particle-wave duality, but not in the way that guy is trying to suggest.

I love when people use terms like "pseudo science" to make them look bad.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on November 21, 2009, 10:25:58 AM
Sorry, but I do tend to ignore anything with the term "aether" in the first couple of paragraphs.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 21, 2009, 10:35:44 AM
Sorry, but I do tend to ignore anything with the term "aether" in the first couple of paragraphs.

I'm supposing you prefer the terms free space, spin foam, Planck particles, quantum wave state (QWS), zero-point energy, quantum foam, and vacuum energy.  Or how about Dark Energy and Quintessence?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on November 21, 2009, 01:44:07 PM
Sorry, but I do tend to ignore anything with the term "aether" in the first couple of paragraphs.

I'm supposing you prefer the terms free space, spin foam, Planck particles, quantum wave state (QWS), zero-point energy, quantum foam, and vacuum energy.  Or how about Dark Energy and Quintessence?

Your point being?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2009, 02:29:09 PM
Quote
Your point being?

Mrs. Peach's point being that you're uneducated when it comes to matters of science 'thought'.

Sorry, but I do tend to ignore anything with the term "aether" in the first couple of paragraphs.

What do you think bends when Einstein says that "space bends"?

Aether, that's what.

Aether is supposed to be the fabric of space. Einstein argued aggressively for the existence of Aether (space fabric) throughout his entire life, and wrote books and books on the subject (General Relativity).

Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on November 21, 2009, 03:38:04 PM
Quote
Your point being?

Mrs. Peach's point being that you're uneducated when it comes to matters of science 'thought'.
Right...my degree says something different, but to each his own.
Sorry, but I do tend to ignore anything with the term "aether" in the first couple of paragraphs.

What do you think bends when Einstein says that "space bends"?

Aether, that's what.

Aether is supposed to be the fabric of space. Einstein argued aggressively for the existence of Aether (space fabric) throughout his entire life, and wrote books and books on the subject (General Relativity).

Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
[/quote]
The actual convention for what you are postulating as aether is space-time.  Aether is missing the additional dimentional component.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2009, 05:48:42 PM
Nope. Einstein says that Aether is space-time. It's the fabric of space which bends.

So you're saying that you are smarter than Einstein?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 21, 2009, 06:13:45 PM
Nope. Einstein says that Aether is space-time. It's the fabric of space which bends.

So you're saying that you are smarter than Einstein?

Please give a quote from Einstein where he says this.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2009, 06:21:40 PM
Nope. Einstein says that Aether is space-time. It's the fabric of space which bends.

So you're saying that you are smarter than Einstein?

Please give a quote from Einstein where he says this.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory :

"In physics the Einstein Aether theory, also called ae-theory is a controversial generally covariant generalization of general relativity which describes a spacetime endowed with both a metric and a unit timelike vector field named the aether."

---

Here's Einstein himself saying that Aether gives space its flexy fabric for GR:

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 21, 2009, 06:23:53 PM
lol, obvious fake.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2009, 06:36:44 PM
Please educate yourself in matters of General Relativity. Einstein mentions the word Aether several thousand times through his books on GR. He says that there is a fabric to space called the Aether.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1547


Click "PDF" on the right hand side to download the report.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 21, 2009, 06:39:51 PM
Please provide me with a reference by Einstein himself where he says Aether exists. Thanks.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2009, 06:41:31 PM
Please provide me with a reference by Einstein himself where he says Aether exists. Thanks.

Read his books. Thanks.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 21, 2009, 06:42:05 PM
Please provide me with a reference by Einstein himself where he says Aether exists. Thanks.

Read his books. Thanks.

Give me a title.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2009, 06:48:31 PM
Start with his "Aether and Relativity".

www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html

Quote from Einstein:

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 21, 2009, 07:01:41 PM
this is just some supposed address at the University of Leyden. It's not his book.

EDIT:

Notice the spelling 'Leyden' I used as is given on that website you linked us to. The proper spelling for the famous Dutch University (and town) is Leiden, well known to any person with proper academic background. Therefore, I call bullshit on your website, as I do on almost all the things you post.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on November 21, 2009, 07:49:34 PM
Also notice that the overwhelming majority of the references to ether were historical in nature, even if we could trust the dubious provenance of that website. Mountain man? lol
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2009, 08:58:45 PM
Quote
Notice the spelling 'Leyden' I used as is given on that website you linked us to. The proper spelling for the famous Dutch University (and town) is Leiden, well known to any person with proper academic background.

Do a search for the quote "we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities"

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22we+may+say+that+according+to+the+general+theory+of+relativity+space+is+endowed+with+physical+qualities%22&btnG=Google+Search&fp=308f339eac69ecd2

3,180 results of Einstein's own words.

Quote
Therefore, I call bullshit on your website, as I do on almost all the things you post.

Hey, it's not my fault that you are uneducated, uncultured, and a dolt to top it off.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 21, 2009, 09:01:27 PM
i never knew Einstein spoke in English when addressing Dutch people.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on November 21, 2009, 09:04:14 PM
Considering the fact that he wasn't dutch they would probably use a well known intermediary language. Perhaps english.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 21, 2009, 09:20:11 PM
Considering the fact that he wasn't dutch they would probably use a well known intermediary language. Perhaps english.

Or, maybe, German. At that time that was the international language of Physics.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 21, 2009, 10:22:05 PM
I refer you to the University of Leiden's website (http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/einstein/einstein.html) about Einstein's and Ehrenfest's friendship at Leiden. It says:

Ehrenfest invited Einstein to become "Bijzonder Hoogleraar" (special professor) at Leiden University. This would bring him to Leiden regularly for a few weeks a year. Einstein liked the idea of such a "comet-like existence in Leiden". He began his official duties on October 27, 1920, with an inaugural lecture on "Ether and Relativity Theory" (where "ether" refers to the gravitational field, not the abandoned concept of the electromagnetic ether).

There is a book by Abraham Pais, where he mentiones this inaugural speech in the second paragraph on page 313 (http://books.google.com/books?id=U2mO4nUunuwC&lpg=PP1&dq=subtle%20is%20the%20lord%20pais&pg=PA313#v=onepage&q=&f=false), and he gives a specific quotation on the printed version of the manuscript ([E39]), but Google books does not show the page where this reference is cited.

See the footnote on the same page. By 'aether', Einstein actually meant gravitational field with electromagnetic field.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2009, 10:26:04 PM
It's the "gravitational field" because it's the "fabric of space time". Aether is the fabric of space-time.

Relativity has the fabric of space bending to attract bodies. There aren't any fields in a Newtonian sense.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 21, 2009, 10:27:30 PM
what kind of fabric are you talking about? And was there someone knitting space-time?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2009, 10:39:17 PM
Einstein didn't say where the Aether (fabric) of space came from. Only that it was there, and is what allowed him to stretch and compress time for Special Relativity, and is what allowed him to bend space for General Relativity.

Einstein said that empty space was not empty, but there was an underlying fabric called the Aether. He uses the fabric of space time like a rubber mat, to manipulate the physical universe so that calculation met reality.

Time can stretch, compress, or stop all together because of the fabric of space. Bodies can attract, repel, or morph, because of the fabric of space.

The fabric of space time is a hypothesis, and a big one at that, but Einstein tied it tightly together with enough elegance that it seemed to work, which is why his ideas are as famous as they are.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 21, 2009, 10:56:21 PM
Einstein said that empty space was not empty, but there was an underlying fabric called the Aether. He uses the fabric of space time like a rubber mat, to manipulate the physical universe so that calculation met reality.

What calculation?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2009, 02:07:22 AM
Einstein said that empty space was not empty, but there was an underlying fabric called the Aether. He uses the fabric of space time like a rubber mat, to manipulate the physical universe so that calculation met reality.

What calculation?

There are many calculations in his books which are efforts to demonstrate GR/SR correct and to match his rubber mat equations with reality.

He wrote them so you could read them.

Available at a library near you.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 22, 2009, 09:43:05 AM
Does any of the calculation have to do about planets orbiting the Sun?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on November 22, 2009, 04:46:23 PM
You do know the subject of the first paper Einstein wrote right?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 22, 2009, 05:40:48 PM
no i don't.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on November 22, 2009, 05:42:22 PM
you should look it up.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on November 22, 2009, 05:58:44 PM
Sorry to confuse all of you, but the term "ether" or "aether" is not really used by modern theoretical physics the way it was in the 1850s. First of all, Einstein was not the perfect genius that he is often portrayed as; he still got a lot of ideas wrong. Secondly, the fundamental forces do not require a medium to conduct them. And third, the pseudo science crowd made such a mockery of the term that it is virtually meaningless. 
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2009, 06:00:06 PM
Sorry to confuse all of you, but the term "ether" or "aether" is not really used by modern theoretical physics the way it was in the 1850s. First of all, Einstein was not the perfect genius that he is often portrayed as; he still got a lot of ideas wrong. Secondly, the fundamental forces do not require a medium to conduct them. And third, the pseudo science crowd made such a mockery of the term that it is virtually meaningless.  

So you're saying that you are smarter than Einstein, then?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on November 22, 2009, 06:01:58 PM
Sorry to confuse all of you, but the term "ether" or "aether" is not really used by modern theoretical physics the way it was in the 1850s. First of all, Einstein was not the perfect genius that he is often portrayed as; he still got a lot of ideas wrong. Secondly, the fundamental forces do not require a medium to conduct them. And third, the pseudo science crowd made such a mockery of the term that it is virtually meaningless. 

So you believe that there is no medium conducting the fundamental forces? You'd be disagreeing with pretty much all of modern science in this assumption.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 22, 2009, 06:07:42 PM
you should look it up.

why?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on November 22, 2009, 06:20:48 PM
Sorry to confuse all of you, but the term "ether" or "aether" is not really used by modern theoretical physics the way it was in the 1850s. First of all, Einstein was not the perfect genius that he is often portrayed as; he still got a lot of ideas wrong. Secondly, the fundamental forces do not require a medium to conduct them. And third, the pseudo science crowd made such a mockery of the term that it is virtually meaningless.  

So you're saying that you are smarter than Einstein, then?
Where did I say that?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on November 22, 2009, 06:26:16 PM
Sorry to confuse all of you, but the term "ether" or "aether" is not really used by modern theoretical physics the way it was in the 1850s. First of all, Einstein was not the perfect genius that he is often portrayed as; he still got a lot of ideas wrong. Secondly, the fundamental forces do not require a medium to conduct them. And third, the pseudo science crowd made such a mockery of the term that it is virtually meaningless. 

So you believe that there is no medium conducting the fundamental forces? You'd be disagreeing with pretty much all of modern science in this assumption.
No, not really. The old view of ether was of a conducting medium, such as air is a conducting medium of sound-waves. However, this is not required for the four fundamental forces, unless you want to stretch the definition and quibble over semantics by saying that space-time is equivalent. Which is something Tom loves to do: quibble, dither, and whine.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on November 22, 2009, 06:57:32 PM
Sorry to confuse all of you, but the term "ether" or "aether" is not really used by modern theoretical physics the way it was in the 1850s. First of all, Einstein was not the perfect genius that he is often portrayed as; he still got a lot of ideas wrong. Secondly, the fundamental forces do not require a medium to conduct them. And third, the pseudo science crowd made such a mockery of the term that it is virtually meaningless. 

So you believe that there is no medium conducting the fundamental forces? You'd be disagreeing with pretty much all of modern science in this assumption.
No, not really. The old view of ether was of a conducting medium, such as air is a conducting medium of sound-waves. However, this is not required for the four fundamental forces, unless you want to stretch the definition and quibble over semantics by saying that space-time is equivalent. Which is something Tom loves to do: quibble, dither, and whine.

I would say space time definitely is the medium through which they are carried since they follow straight lines until you curve space time.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 23, 2009, 12:35:19 AM
Sorry to confuse all of you, but the term "ether" or "aether" is not really used by modern theoretical physics the way it was in the 1850s. First of all, Einstein was not the perfect genius that he is often portrayed as; he still got a lot of ideas wrong. Secondly, the fundamental forces do not require a medium to conduct them. And third, the pseudo science crowd made such a mockery of the term that it is virtually meaningless.  

So you're saying that you are smarter than Einstein, then?
Where did I say that?

You must be saying that you are smarter than Einstein if you are saying that he was wrong about Aether, the fabric of space.

What works have you published on the topic?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on November 23, 2009, 07:00:40 AM
Sorry to confuse all of you, but the term "ether" or "aether" is not really used by modern theoretical physics the way it was in the 1850s. First of all, Einstein was not the perfect genius that he is often portrayed as; he still got a lot of ideas wrong. Secondly, the fundamental forces do not require a medium to conduct them. And third, the pseudo science crowd made such a mockery of the term that it is virtually meaningless.  

So you're saying that you are smarter than Einstein, then?
Where did I say that?

You must be saying that you are smarter than Einstein if you are saying that he was wrong about Aether, the fabric of space.

What works have you published on the topic?
I am saying that you, like most pseudo-scientists, mis-apply the term ether, which has led to it falling out of favor as a legitimate scientific term.  It was still a concept somewhat favored in Einstein's day, but its fall from grace has more to do with the term being adopted by any number of pseudo-scientific nonsense.  The space-time of relativity is far more an accurate term. Ether implies that there is a physical substance required for the fundamental forces to propagate in, as I mentioned with air-sound example. However, space time is far more accurate, especially in relativity, because the fourth dimension of time is also affected by the actions of certain forces, gravity and velocity for starters.  So yes, while it used to be a legitimate scientific term in the past, the propensity for its use by snake oil salesmen has rendered it irrelevant for use in legitimate scientific research.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: ShnitzelKiller on November 23, 2009, 05:49:38 PM
Sorry to confuse all of you, but the term "ether" or "aether" is not really used by modern theoretical physics the way it was in the 1850s. First of all, Einstein was not the perfect genius that he is often portrayed as; he still got a lot of ideas wrong. Secondly, the fundamental forces do not require a medium to conduct them. And third, the pseudo science crowd made such a mockery of the term that it is virtually meaningless.  

So you're saying that you are smarter than Einstein, then?
I just can't picture you defending a scientist.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 23, 2009, 06:32:44 PM
Sorry to confuse all of you, but the term "ether" or "aether" is not really used by modern theoretical physics the way it was in the 1850s. First of all, Einstein was not the perfect genius that he is often portrayed as; he still got a lot of ideas wrong. Secondly, the fundamental forces do not require a medium to conduct them. And third, the pseudo science crowd made such a mockery of the term that it is virtually meaningless.  

So you're saying that you are smarter than Einstein, then?
Where did I say that?

You must be saying that you are smarter than Einstein if you are saying that he was wrong about Aether, the fabric of space.

What works have you published on the topic?
I am saying that you, like most pseudo-scientists, mis-apply the term ether, which has led to it falling out of favor as a legitimate scientific term.  It was still a concept somewhat favored in Einstein's day, but its fall from grace has more to do with the term being adopted by any number of pseudo-scientific nonsense.  The space-time of relativity is far more an accurate term. Ether implies that there is a physical substance required for the fundamental forces to propagate in, as I mentioned with air-sound example. However, space time is far more accurate, especially in relativity, because the fourth dimension of time is also affected by the actions of certain forces, gravity and velocity for starters.  So yes, while it used to be a legitimate scientific term in the past, the propensity for its use by snake oil salesmen has rendered it irrelevant for use in legitimate scientific research.

So wait. Does Aether exist, or does it not exist?

Are you smarter than Einstein, or are you not smarter than Einstein?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on November 23, 2009, 06:55:52 PM
you should look it up.

why?

I said so.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on November 23, 2009, 07:17:53 PM
you should look it up.

why?

I said so.

Ok, I did. A. Einstein, "Conclusions Drawn from the Phenomena of Capillarity", Annalen der Physik 4, 513-523 (1901)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on November 23, 2009, 10:19:53 PM
Sorry to confuse all of you, but the term "ether" or "aether" is not really used by modern theoretical physics the way it was in the 1850s. First of all, Einstein was not the perfect genius that he is often portrayed as; he still got a lot of ideas wrong. Secondly, the fundamental forces do not require a medium to conduct them. And third, the pseudo science crowd made such a mockery of the term that it is virtually meaningless.  

So you're saying that you are smarter than Einstein, then?
Where did I say that?

You must be saying that you are smarter than Einstein if you are saying that he was wrong about Aether, the fabric of space.

What works have you published on the topic?
I am saying that you, like most pseudo-scientists, mis-apply the term ether, which has led to it falling out of favor as a legitimate scientific term.  It was still a concept somewhat favored in Einstein's day, but its fall from grace has more to do with the term being adopted by any number of pseudo-scientific nonsense.  The space-time of relativity is far more an accurate term. Ether implies that there is a physical substance required for the fundamental forces to propagate in, as I mentioned with air-sound example. However, space time is far more accurate, especially in relativity, because the fourth dimension of time is also affected by the actions of certain forces, gravity and velocity for starters.  So yes, while it used to be a legitimate scientific term in the past, the propensity for its use by snake oil salesmen has rendered it irrelevant for use in legitimate scientific research.

So wait. Does Aether exist, or does it not exist?

Are you smarter than Einstein, or are you not smarter than Einstein?
You love to stretch the definition of things. Are you smarter than Einstein? I think not, given your tendency to resort to logical fallacy and personal attack in a vain attempt to get yourself out of the corner you paint yourself into.  And no, ether in the traditional meaning of the term does not exist.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2009, 02:12:20 AM
Quote
And no, ether in the traditional meaning of the term does not exist.

That's not what Einstein says. He says that Aether exists as the fabric of space.

On what basis do you say you know better than Einstein?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Moon squirter on November 24, 2009, 05:48:16 AM
Quote
And no, ether in the traditional meaning of the term does not exist.

That's not what Einstein says. He says that Aether exists as the fabric of space.

On what basis do you say you know better than Einstein?

Tom, 

Semantics.  Einstein used aether as a term for GR space-time.  The old-style ideas of Aether as a medium (mechanically transmitting light) have nothing to do with Einthein's used of the word, of which he even clarified: (http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html) "..differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light"

Aeither is the word Einstien chose to use.  There is no more significance that that.

Please stop confusing matters and get back in your box.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2009, 02:08:11 PM
Quote
And no, ether in the traditional meaning of the term does not exist.

That's not what Einstein says. He says that Aether exists as the fabric of space.

On what basis do you say you know better than Einstein?

Tom, 

Semantics.  Einstein used aether as a term for GR space-time.  The old-style ideas of Aether as a medium (mechanically transmitting light) have nothing to do with Einthein's used of the word, of which he even clarified: (http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html) "..differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light"

Aeither is the word Einstien chose to use.  There is no more significance that that.

Please stop confusing matters and get back in your box.


Aether has always meant the medium of space.

Einstein says that there is a medium to space called the Aether.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on November 25, 2009, 02:29:47 AM
It is pretty funny. Like the kid in Willy Wonka. Tom doesnt understand that science is always evolving, and that just because Einstein used a term 100 years ago does not mean that it is still valid today.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mrs. Peach on November 25, 2009, 12:09:08 PM
I don't think words can be called valid or invalid.  You're right in that words go in and out of style. Science today has been very busy making substitute words simply because they didn't want to be thought of as 'old-fashioned.'  This commonly used trend can't 'invalidate' the use of the word aether.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on November 25, 2009, 12:37:06 PM
It is pretty funny. Like the kid in Willy Wonka. Tom doesnt understand that science is always evolving, and that just because Einstein used a term 100 years ago does not mean that it is still valid today.

So it is always wrong?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on November 25, 2009, 01:45:06 PM
What is?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on November 25, 2009, 11:23:23 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on November 25, 2009, 11:36:17 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: watchayakan on December 01, 2009, 04:48:09 AM
If nukes are fake than so must be stars, such as our Sun, and by extension Earth.  For if nuclear bombs, which, compared to current technological sophistication, can be quite rudimentary, have never been built despite the apparent knowledge to make them and the underlying physics, then the physics must be wrong.  If the physics is wrong, then stars (at least active stars, that is; however, even the inactive ones start as active ones) would not be able to generate the energy the day and create the elements that they do.  The Universe would be no more complex than Helium without fusion.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on December 01, 2009, 11:51:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on December 01, 2009, 05:49:46 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.
No, it is our understanding of the universe that is always changing, and the fact that it is does not make it de facto wrong. If all science is automatically wrong in your mind, then how do you explain the transistor or any number of technologies and advancements that have occurred because of science?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2009, 05:56:27 PM
Quote
If all science is automatically wrong in your mind, then how do you explain the transistor or any number of technologies and advancements that have occurred because of science?

Crafting toys is not science. I have a little nephew who builds cars and space ships out of Legos every day. Is he a scientist?

Clock smiths are not scientists. Mechanics are not scientists. Neither are metal workers.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: watchayakan on December 01, 2009, 07:09:46 PM
Quote
If all science is automatically wrong in your mind, then how do you explain the transistor or any number of technologies and advancements that have occurred because of science?

Crafting toys is not science. I have a little nephew who builds cars and space ships out of Legos every day. Is he a scientist?

Clock smiths are not scientists. Mechanics are not scientists. Neither are metal workers.
So people just created semiconductors hoping they would work?  Lasers?  GPS systems?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2009, 07:22:04 PM
So people just created semiconductors hoping they would work?  Lasers?  GPS systems?

It's built the same way a clock smith makes a clock work: Tinkering

Tinkering is not "science". People are natural tinkerers.

Programmers tinker together code to do what they want. Machinists tinker together cogs and pipes to do what they want. Neither are "scientists". What they create is not "science". They're more like laborers.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on December 01, 2009, 07:24:50 PM
Quote
If all science is automatically wrong in your mind, then how do you explain the transistor or any number of technologies and advancements that have occurred because of science?

Crafting toys is not science. I have a little nephew who builds cars and space ships out of Legos every day. Is he a scientist?

Clock smiths are not scientists. Mechanics are not scientists. Neither are metal workers.
Do you know how much science actually lies behind those legos? LOL  Mechanics may not be scientists, but the principles that drive the engines they work on were all derived incrementally by science.  Metal workers may not be scientists, but fortunately for them modern chemistry explains why they cant weld dis-similar metals before they waste a lot of time trying.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on December 01, 2009, 07:26:21 PM
So people just created semiconductors hoping they would work?  Lasers?  GPS systems?

It's built the same way a clock smith makes a clock work: Tinkering
You obviously have no idea as to the history of the semi-conductor.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2009, 07:33:17 PM
Do you know how much science actually lies behind those legos? LOL  Mechanics may not be scientists, but the principles that drive the engines they work on were all derived incrementally by science.  Metal workers may not be scientists, but fortunately for them modern chemistry explains why they cant weld dis-similar metals before they waste a lot of time trying.

Science comprises the fundamentals of a technology. Not the technology itself.

Many people tend to be dim witted and do not understand this.

Technology, whether it be lasers or Segways, is made by modern day clock makers. They are tinkerers. It doesn't matter if they're tinkering with circuits under a magnifying glass or they're building a garden shed in their back yard. They are tinkerers and nothing more.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on December 01, 2009, 07:49:17 PM
Do you know how much science actually lies behind those legos? LOL  Mechanics may not be scientists, but the principles that drive the engines they work on were all derived incrementally by science.  Metal workers may not be scientists, but fortunately for them modern chemistry explains why they cant weld dis-similar metals before they waste a lot of time trying.

Science comprises the fundamentals of a technology. Not the technology itself.

Many people tend to be dim witted and do not understand this.

Technology, whether it be lasers or Segways, is made by modern day clock makers. They are tinkerers. It doesn't matter if they're tinkering with circuits under a magnifying glass or they're building a garden shed in their back yard. They are tinkerers and nothing more.
Thank you for making my point, for without the underlying science they would have no way to make those technologies.  Oh, and nobody "tinkers with a circuit under a magnifying glass".  If you dont have a fundamental understanding of how a device works at a fundamental level, it is quite difficult to make anything productive. It is quite apparent that you have never built anything.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: watchayakan on December 01, 2009, 08:06:13 PM
So people just created semiconductors hoping they would work?  Lasers?  GPS systems?

It's built the same way a clock smith makes a clock work: Tinkering

Tinkering is not "science". People are natural tinkerers.

Programmers tinker together code to do what they want. Machinists tinker together cogs and pipes to do what they want. Neither are "scientists". What they create is not "science". They're more like laborers.
All three of my examples need very precise science.  You don't just 'tinker' into that.

Also, I like how you keep comparing it to a clock, as though there is no science behind a clock and that no understanding went into each generation of timekeeping.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on December 01, 2009, 09:49:36 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.
No, it is our understanding of the universe that is always changing, and the fact that it is does not make it de facto wrong. If all science is automatically wrong in your mind, then how do you explain the transistor or any number of technologies and advancements that have occurred because of science?

You're the one that said our understanding is always wrong, not me.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2009, 09:52:25 PM
Thank you for making my point, for without the underlying science they would have no way to make those technologies.  Oh, and nobody "tinkers with a circuit under a magnifying glass".  If you dont have a fundamental understanding of how a device works at a fundamental level, it is quite difficult to make anything productive. It is quite apparent that you have never built anything.

An understanding of how the gears of a clock works isn't science.

I can build all sorts of things with my erector set. But I'm not conducting science. It's called engineering.

Quote
All three of my examples need very precise science.  You don't just 'tinker' into that.

Also, I like how you keep comparing it to a clock, as though there is no science behind a clock and that no understanding went into each generation of timekeeping.

I'm not saying that there's no understanding behind building and designing things. It's just not a science.

Carpenters are not scientists. Clock makers are not scientists. Welders are not scientists.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on December 02, 2009, 05:55:25 PM
Thank you for making my point, for without the underlying science they would have no way to make those technologies.  Oh, and nobody "tinkers with a circuit under a magnifying glass".  If you dont have a fundamental understanding of how a device works at a fundamental level, it is quite difficult to make anything productive. It is quite apparent that you have never built anything.

An understanding of how the gears of a clock works isn't science.

I can build all sorts of things with my erector set. But I'm not conducting science. It's called engineering.

Quote
All three of my examples need very precise science.  You don't just 'tinker' into that.

Also, I like how you keep comparing it to a clock, as though there is no science behind a clock and that no understanding went into each generation of timekeeping.

I'm not saying that there's no understanding behind building and designing things. It's just not a science.

Carpenters are not scientists. Clock makers are not scientists. Welders are not scientists.
Maybe not, but you seem to be having a hard time understanding the fact that without the science behind it, there is no engineering, whether it be chemical, electrical, or civil.  There is a direct correlation between the science discovering the underlying principles of a technology, and the application of that knowledge in something usefull.  You cant possibly have the technology without the science coming first.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: watchayakan on December 02, 2009, 11:02:08 PM
Thank you for making my point, for without the underlying science they would have no way to make those technologies.  Oh, and nobody "tinkers with a circuit under a magnifying glass".  If you dont have a fundamental understanding of how a device works at a fundamental level, it is quite difficult to make anything productive. It is quite apparent that you have never built anything.

An understanding of how the gears of a clock works isn't science.

I can build all sorts of things with my erector set. But I'm not conducting science. It's called engineering.
Actually, that is science.
Quote
All three of my examples need very precise science.  You don't just 'tinker' into that.

Also, I like how you keep comparing it to a clock, as though there is no science behind a clock and that no understanding went into each generation of timekeeping.

I'm not saying that there's no understanding behind building and designing things. It's just not a science.

Carpenters are not scientists. Clock makers are not scientists. Welders are not scientists.
Understanding how they work is not science?  What do you propose science is?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on December 03, 2009, 06:11:34 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.
No, it is our understanding of the universe that is always changing, and the fact that it is does not make it de facto wrong. If all science is automatically wrong in your mind, then how do you explain the transistor or any number of technologies and advancements that have occurred because of science?

You're the one that said our understanding is always wrong, not me.
No F-Mook, I did not, perhaps incomplete, but not wrong. Not that you could ever understand the difference.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: watchayakan on December 03, 2009, 06:55:20 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on December 03, 2009, 10:51:53 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?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: watchayakan on December 04, 2009, 01:19:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on December 07, 2009, 11:04:36 AM
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?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Robert64 on December 07, 2009, 01:16:16 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?
Science is just trying to create an accurate collection of models in which to explain the world. It moves on to more accurate models when they are proven to be more accurate. It is therefore working its way to as close as it can get to the truth.

I personally believe that it will never reach perfectly accurate explanations because I believe the universe runs on a very simple set of rules that creates chaotic systems, like langton's ant. We can model the chaotic systems rather well, but unless we understand the basic ruleset we won't get perfection.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on December 07, 2009, 03:55:35 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?
Science is just trying to create an accurate collection of models in which to explain the world. It moves on to more accurate models when they are proven to be more accurate. It is therefore working its way to as close as it can get to the truth.

I personally believe that it will never reach perfectly accurate explanations because I believe the universe runs on a very simple set of rules that creates chaotic systems, like langton's ant. We can model the chaotic systems rather well, but unless we understand the basic ruleset we won't get perfection.

So we don't understand the basic rules? Gotcha, must be why they think gravity exists.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: watchayakan on December 07, 2009, 08:03:11 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on December 08, 2009, 06:48:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on December 08, 2009, 08:13:43 AM
I think that was tongue in cheek, or dont you read people well? lol
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on December 08, 2009, 08:15:59 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?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 10:37:59 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?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on December 08, 2009, 04:00:01 PM
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?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: malashenko on March 14, 2010, 06:05:49 PM
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—that 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 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:

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—that 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on March 26, 2010, 08:03:43 AM
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—that 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on March 26, 2010, 09:12:44 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Friedrich on March 26, 2010, 09:28:38 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on March 26, 2010, 11:48:23 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: malashenko on March 27, 2010, 02:22:05 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on March 27, 2010, 08:08:06 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:

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—that 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on March 27, 2010, 08:10:10 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Friedrich on March 27, 2010, 08:52:47 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:

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—that 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on March 27, 2010, 09:36:57 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:

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—that 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Friedrich on March 27, 2010, 09:49:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: malashenko on March 27, 2010, 09:57:14 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on March 28, 2010, 01:12:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: malashenko on March 28, 2010, 01:29:20 AM
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?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Friedrich on March 28, 2010, 01:29:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: malashenko on March 28, 2010, 01:48:43 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—Japan 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on March 28, 2010, 02:02:41 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—Japan 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.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Friedrich on March 28, 2010, 02:12:31 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?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on March 28, 2010, 02:14:48 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?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Friedrich on March 28, 2010, 02:21:20 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?

A perfect! You just said that you respect wikipedia as a source for information in another thread. So, I'll use that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

"The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth. Its seismic body wave magnitude was about 5 to 5.25."

"The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, breaking windows there and in Canada."

There we go!

It's actually pretty funny that someone demands proof after pretty much saying that the only thing they provide is: "Evil goverment! They lie! Don't you see?"


So, now it's your turn. Show me something to back up your claims.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on March 28, 2010, 02:35:58 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?

A perfect! You just said that you respect wikipedia as a source for information in another thread. So, I'll use that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

"The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth. Its seismic body wave magnitude was about 5 to 5.25."

"The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, breaking windows there and in Canada."

There we go!

It's actually pretty funny that someone demands proof after pretty much saying that the only thing they provide is: "Evil goverment! They lie! Don't you see?"


So, now it's your turn. Show me something to back up your claims.
I'm not making the claim...per se...that the bombs don't exist.  I'm saying there is good potential that they don't so I choose to believe they don't.
All those things I said about the Japanese are true, but I don't think this was the point your were getting at.

"The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland[citation needed] , breaking windows there and in Canada.[citation needed]"  lol.  Well...there goes the witness accounts, lol.  I haven't seen anything other wise.

The references to the seismic evidence are third hand accounts of third hand accounts.
I want to know who said these things, and I want to see the data.
Otherwise, it's just yellow journalism.
If the New York Times says that a seismic observatory in New Zealand detected 5.5 on the scale, who can refute that 40 years ago?  By the time they do, the info is out of the public eye, and we're on to the next big development.
All 'Nuclear Powers' have a vested interest in validating each other's claims. 
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 17 November on March 28, 2010, 03:18:52 AM
Quote from: Mizzle
All 'Nuclear Powers' have a vested interest in validating each other's claims.

Good point.  I don't know why I didn't think of that as it is rather obvious.  The deception is maintained by so-called nuclear powered governments who when talking about this and certain other subjects seem to use rhetoric which means things other than what is understood by most people.   

I have mentioned Noam Chomsky's book 'Necessary Illusions:  Thought Control in Democratic Societies' and especially Walter Bowart's 'Operation Mind Control' (especially the 1994 greatly expanded edition) as volumes which provide approaches which could lead to a fuller understanding of the phenomena of this myth and its purpose.

My thread on this topic:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.0

Also, levee (aka sandokhan) has posted some valuable information pertaining to this modern myth.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on March 28, 2010, 03:27:29 AM
That was a great post.  I book marked to so I can potentially investigate this report as you claim.  I'm very interested in the subject.

I don't have any proof of foul play, but I feel all the right pieces are there.
Like I said before, it's completely amazing how fast we went from concept to strategic (some say tactical, I say strategic) deployment of the bombs.  Just a few years times from concept to weapon.
If you could discover the enrichment process and enrich uranium this quickly, why hasn't every relatively modern country in the world done so.  We did it in just a couple years, surely 60 years has been enough to play catch up.  Yet, Iran hasn't done it yet, and they've be (purportedly) working on it for years.
I think the US, UK, et al governments don't want Iran to find out the damn bombs are fake, lol.
Iran's the only country in the world with enough balls to call bullshit.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 17 November on March 28, 2010, 05:12:35 AM
Quote from: 17 November
The deception is maintained by so-called nuclear powered governments who when talking about this and certain other subjects seem to use rhetoric which means things other than what is understood by most people.

Some persons who have survived, escaped, and recovered from intensive CIA thought control programming such as Candy Jones, Cathy O'Brien, or Sue Ford reveal that high level politicians (including for example US presidents), financiers, and their associates within certain clearly defined but secret and discreet social circles use a common language of thought control triggers with these unfortunate individuals in order for them to do any number of things including delivering verbatim top secret messages, performing sex acts, or whatever they are told to do. 

Candy Jones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Jones

Sue Ford (Brice Taylor)
http://www.whale.to/b/taylor.html

Cathy O'Brien
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280183.shtml

Operation Mind Control (Original 1978 Edition)
By Walter Bowart
http://www.karlaturner.org/books/Operation_Mind_Control_-_Walter_Bowart.pdf

(The huge 1994 edition of Bowart's book includes a chapter each on Cathy O'Brien and Sue Ford which are synopses of their stories prior to the appearance of their own autobiographies.)

Bearing in mind that the nuclear weapons hoax was nearing full implementation during world war two, it is interesting to note on page 129 of the (above) 1978 edition of 'Operation Mind Control' that Bowart states that OSS (CIA's WWII predesecessor) founder British SOE agent William Stephenson was using mind controlled "zombies" as agents for sensitive missions during the early days of world war two.

"On the KSAN program Candy Jones and Donald Bain
both insisted, despite my own evidence and arguments, the
testimony of Jessica Mitford, and the evidence provided by
two other investigative reporters, that Candy had been only
a human guinea pig used for experimental purposes. The
records of the CIA mind-control project clearly show, however,
that during the 1960s the cryptocracy's mind control
had gone far beyond the experimental stage. On that radio
show, Candy Jones herself revealed that Sir William Stephenson
(A Man Called Intrepid) believed that she was no
guinea pig. She reported that Stephenson wrote her that as
far back as the early days of World War II he had used
zombie agents like her in the service of British Intelligence."

The relevant point here is that a form of communication is used which most people do not recognize or discern or even have any idea about.  With nuclear weapons, most people are led to believe things that are not true because of their television sets or faith in something in which it is patently all to easy to propagate complete falsehoods and have people believe them.  This occurs all the time with politics so it is not much of a stretch to use the same mediums of deception to alter some of peoples' understandings of science and nature.  The major news media are instruments in the service of those who own and control them - they are unfortunately not at the service of truth for the sake of peoples' knowledge.

Quote from: Mizzle
Iran's the only country in the world with enough balls to call bullshit.

This seems likely the case which would only further confirm that the so-called nuclear powers which check each others back are limited to governments or forces allied to the United States.  The old British colonial power fell in the 1940's, but was replaced in India and Pakistan by governments of sahibs (i.e. the south asian version of oreos or uncle toms) who do what they are told in order to stay in power. 

In the case of the alleged nuclear weapons of the USSR, it was pointed out by Tony Cliff (taking Trotskyism to its logical conclusion) in his 1947 book 'State Capitalism in Russia' that Stalinist Russia was absolutely a counter-revolutionary capitalist (as opposed to Marxist) state since at least 1928.  Unlike the true revolutionaries whom he put to death, Stalin was viewed by western capitalists as someone with whom deals could be cut. 

Ralph Epperson wrote a book and produced a DVD documentary on the subject that the USSR never had any nuclear weapons at all - he includes reports of instances of wooden or impressive sized fake missiles installed for the benefit of camera crews. 

http://ralph-epperson.com/#b6

Although deluded into believing that the US has nuclear weapons, Epperson states that "One of the evidences is the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (the INF Treaty) signed in 1989 by Pres. Ronald Reagan and Russian Premier Mikhael Gorbachev.  The Treaty "ELIMINATES" WARHEADS AND MISSILES WITHOUT EITHER NATION BEING ALLOWED TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE that warheads and missiles have been ELIMINATED!"

The whole purpose of this part of this particular arrangement (eliminating warheads) is to eliminate the need to extensively verify the existence of these alleged weapons.  The (bi-lateral) reduction of warheads was a necessary step of deception because it reduces the alleged overall number of so-called nuclear weapons as well as the number of alleged overall places they are stored.  Thus, the United States or the Soviet Union need only maintain the hoax in a very small number of highly and easily controlled military environments.  This is the truth about cold war era US-USSR nuclear weapons reductions talks and agreements - what is presented as the main story is a sham, a lie.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 17 November on March 28, 2010, 06:02:05 AM
Radioactive Danger is False Propaganda

Another aspect of this myth is the danger of alleged nuclear radiation about which mainstream scientists are definitely not in consensus.  

As I mentioned before many men who worked on the first so-called US atomic bombs in the 1940's and were directly exposed to plutonium (widely branded by american scientists and media as the deadliest substance known to man) were shown by a 1980 Financial Times article over thirty years later to be all in perfect health except for two who who had died (one in an auto accident and the other in old age of natural causes).

The false Chernobyl propaganda was blown out of all proportions to reality from the beginning by the same Russian government which pretends it has weapons of mass destruction whose alleged power of explosiveness defy scientific reality and demonstrable fact.

The Truth About Chernobyl is Told
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html



Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on March 28, 2010, 08:23:43 AM
Wow...you're in deep, lol.
That's a lot to take in, all very plausible.
You've clearly done a lot of research into this.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 17 November on April 04, 2010, 07:51:33 PM
Walter Bowart's 'Operation Mind Control' again came to mind after reading the following post from Science Forums.net:

"I suppose most of you are aware that Col Paul Tibbets, who recently passed away at age 94, was the pilot of the B-29 called Enola Gay said to have dropped the first atom bomb on the City of Hiroshima in August 1945. Ok, lets have a closer look at that story for a moment and see if the good Col was suffering from magnitude dyslexia.

The story says that the B-29 carrying this atom bomb was cruising at an altitude of about 30,000 feet when they dropped the bomb and it is written that the bomb detonated at about 1800 feet above the city of Hiroshima. According to the testimonials of the crew onboard the Enola Gay two seperate shock waves struck them after the bomb went off and the shock was so severe that they thought they were experiencing flack. One report said the shock was spine jarring. Anyways the crew of the plane that dropped this bomb are clear that the plane was rocked good twice. Col Tibbets told his crew that the second shock wave was a reflection from the ground. So far no problem.

I have examined a lot of post bombing photos, aerial or otherwise, of the city of Hiroshima and saw charred trees still standing, streets clear of debris and read reports that the underground piped were barely damaged. I did not see a crater nor did I see the slightest clue that would indicate a shockwave of any kind. I tried to find some historical seismograms that recorded the blast and none exist I am told. So, here's the problem:

How can a plane be violently rocked from a blast 28,000 feet below it while the city only 1800 feet below the blast shows no evidence of a shockwave? I mean, how is this possible? If the blast was sufficient to violently rock a B-29 at 30,000 feet then why were the streets in the city just below the blast not littered with debris, the piping totally obliterated and the ground cratered as if hit by a gargantuan hammer? Are all these people suffering from magnitude dyslexia or is the official record of what happened there untruthful?"

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29808

Bowart explains that during a radio interview in San Francisco in the late 1970's promoting his book, he received a call from a retired Navy Commander who stated that in the late 1960's he led a group of men on a top secret mission in southeast asia.  At first he remembered nothing remarkable about it except that on the way back he caught the flu - the whole group seemed to catch the fluu and spent two weeks in the hospital immediately after the mission was over.  Afterwards, they all returned home with cardboard memories, but after several years he began to have dreams and flashbacks as his memory of what occirred gradually returned.  He indicated that he realized that they had actually crossed the border into China on a mission to assassinate specific local charismatic political leaders, and that he was not proud of any of it.

I do not presently have any direct corroborative evidence with reguard to the unlikely stroy of the Enola Gay crew about two alleged shock waves, but it is worth taking into account.  Bowart does say that the section of society most often vulnerable to be used as guinea pigs for mind control experiments and operations are members of the military.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 04, 2010, 09:34:29 PM
Great links and posts.  It's crazy that no one ever bothers to read this kind of information.  Everyone's always like "Of course nukes are real, I saw the video on the TV!"

I know that radiation does make people sick, but I don't think it's the same as particle decay radiation as in plutonium.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on April 04, 2010, 11:46:57 PM
Great links and posts.  It's crazy that no one ever bothers to read this kind of information.  Everyone's always like "Of course nukes are real, I saw the video on the TV!"
People do not read this (dis)information that 17November posts, since it's an obvious copypasta and does not address the point.

I know that radiation does make people sick, but I don't think it's the same as particle decay radiation as in plutonium.
what are you talking about?

EDIT:
Radioactive Danger is False Propaganda

Another aspect of this myth is the danger of alleged nuclear radiation about which mainstream scientists are definitely not in consensus.  

As I mentioned before many men who worked on the first so-called US atomic bombs in the 1940's and were directly exposed to plutonium (widely branded by american scientists and media as the deadliest substance known to man) were shown by a 1980 Financial Times article over thirty years later to be all in perfect health except for two who who had died (one in an auto accident and the other in old age of natural causes).

If you are so certain in your claims, would you care to repeat the experiment for us?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 05, 2010, 12:30:27 AM
I know that radiation does make people sick, but I don't think it's the same as particle decay radiation as in plutonium.
what are you talking about?

Gamma rays vs alpha rays.  Plutonium releases alpha particles, and it's held that while exposure to intense beams of Gamma rays are toxic, alpha particles are not.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on April 05, 2010, 05:08:59 AM
I know that radiation does make people sick, but I don't think it's the same as particle decay radiation as in plutonium.
what are you talking about?

Gamma rays vs alpha rays.  Plutonium releases alpha particles, and it's held that while exposure to intense beams of Gamma rays are toxic, alpha particles are not.
Try swallowing some plutonium and report back, please.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: dude55 on April 05, 2010, 06:52:29 AM
Alright, I'll go ahead and just bite into this topic then. The explosion in Hiroshima was seen by nearby villages and even military/Japanese governmental workers, the damage done by the bombs wasn't of burning, (Although some buildings were burnt or on fire of course.) many stone structures were destroyed or crash down, a fire explosion wouldn't have caused as nearly much destruction as was caused. Not to mention for a fire bombing or for as many bombs as their would have needed to been to cause this damage there would have needed to be far more then one plane. And proof that there WAS one plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi#Nagasaki_bombing

The man survived two bombs and died from cancer. (I believe the cancer was caused by the very radiation he was exposed to from the bombs..)

Not to mention why would Japan agree to show themselves as weaklings and say they got destroyed by atomic bombs? I mean after all if Japan would have proof they were fake (which they obviously would have had) then they would have gladly said they were. Not to mention there would be far more wars if atomic bombs didnt exist, many governments today are -afraid- of starting wars because the threat of a nuclear holocaust. The very thing this fake nuke conspiracy is built on which is the fear of the public masses would strike as much fear into the governments if they were real.

And why would every other country in the world that despised us at the time want to give America the chance to so called have the first 'fake' Nuke and not themselves? Even today America is known to have the most 'fake' bombs then any other.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: The Question1 on April 05, 2010, 11:15:38 AM
Ask the survivors,and eyewitnesses if Nukes exist ::).
People can deny anything apparently,never thought nuclear weapons would be one.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 06, 2010, 04:15:19 AM
You ask the survivors.
There don't have to be any survivors in fact.  All it would take are a few journalists that 'went' there to fabricate a story.
What villagers saw the plane and explosions?  A handful of people that probably don't exist, that's who.

You need to think about the possibility in the light of conspiracy.
If you can link to eye witness accounts of verifiable people, not affiliated with the US Government, then we've got something.  Until then, all the accounts are make-believe propaganda.

Why don't I believe they exist?  Outside of TV and movies, I've seen absolutely zero evidence to their existence.  I don't just mean I personally haven't seen them, I'm talking about scientific data and reports which don't exist.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: The Question1 on April 06, 2010, 12:41:06 PM
What do you mean no evidence?Doesn't Nuclear power work the same way?
Isn't the radioactive surviovors proof enough?
Otherwise i don't see why the japannesse would stop,or not call them out.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 06, 2010, 07:52:18 PM
What do you mean no evidence?Doesn't Nuclear power work the same way?
Isn't the radioactive surviovors proof enough?
Otherwise i don't see why the japannesse would stop,or not call them out.
Call whom out?  Radioactive survivors?  Where are all these people?  Where are you getting this info from?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Vongeo on April 06, 2010, 08:19:56 PM
That video was rather dumb. I don't hate much openly, but I found that to be quite stupid.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Pete on April 06, 2010, 09:48:45 PM
You need to think about the possibility in the light of conspiracy.
If you can link to eye witness accounts of verifiable people, not affiliated with the US Government, then we've got something.  Until then, all the accounts are make-believe propaganda.

Durrrrrrr, how about the Imperial Court of Japan? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/71.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/71.pdf) http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/63.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/63.pdf) http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/62.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/62.pdf) http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/61.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/61.pdf)

Why don't I believe they exist?

Because you aren't terribly bright?

 Outside of TV and movies, I've seen absolutely zero evidence to their existence.

See above links.

 I don't just mean I personally haven't seen them, I'm talking about scientific data and reports which don't exist.

You don't think it exists because you never bothered to use Google  ::)

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/archives/ABCC_GeneralReport1947.html (http://www7.nationalacademies.org/archives/ABCC_GeneralReport1947.html)

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 07, 2010, 05:52:16 PM
Absolutely none of those links directed me to 'eyewitness accounts' that so many people talk about in this thread.  Where are all the seismic readings?  Where are all the survivors?
There is one reference to the term 'eyewitness account,' in the 4th link, but it seems to be referencing some eyewitness account that is not cited whatsoever.  In fact, other than that it actually says 'eyewitness account' there is nothing resembling an eye witness's account.
I want to see all the 'independent agency' reports that people claim as evidence, even though they haven't seen it themselves.

When someone starts linking to this NON-US-GOVERNMENT affiliated 'independent' 'evidence,' I'll buy into it.  As of yet, nothing has been substantiated.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: The Question1 on April 07, 2010, 06:44:30 PM
What do you mean no evidence?Doesn't Nuclear power work the same way?
Isn't the radioactive surviovors proof enough?
Otherwise i don't see why the japannesse would stop,or not call them out.
Call whom out?  Radioactive survivors?  Where are all these people?  Where are you getting this info from?
Obviously the americans,i mean if it didn't happen than the survivors surely would have said something right?
The people registered with the japanesse government as survivors of the bombs.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 07, 2010, 07:47:55 PM
This topic is nothing like Flat earth -- speculating to get your brain thinking is generally a good thing -- but this is a completely different matter. Downplaying any sort of human suffering is taking it way too far.

Seriously folks, go watch a documentary or two. Most of them even have credits at the end if you want references. If you can watch the tens or hundreds of traumatized and victimized hiroshima/nagasaki witnesses retell their story, and still call it a bald faced lie, then there is no amount of pity that any of us can express towards you. There is no mistaking a nuclear bomb for a massive firebomb raid. Sorry folks.

On a less serious note, if you go get a Geiger counter and visit sites that were bombed in the past or recently you'll find your evidence. Even the older sites still have residual level of radiation.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 07, 2010, 08:08:13 PM
What people registered with the japanese government?  Where do you get this information?  That's what I'm trying to figure out here.  There's a whole lot of tale-telling, and nothing to back it up.

What documentaries?  Clearly, you've seen them, so what are they, and what are these references that you know of?

I'm still waiting for someone to produce the eye witness accounts.  If everyone is so sure as to their existence, then it shouldn't be hard to remember where you found this information.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Death-T on April 07, 2010, 08:20:43 PM
Here's a question - why would our government invent the existance of a nuclear bomb? Why would we not throw away the farce when the Soviets got the bomb? Why would the Japanese go along with it? Why would we allow a fake weapon to become a bargaining chip for rogue nations.... such as North Korea?

As for survivors - http://www.web.net/~cnanw/setsukostory.htm

Seriously - if you grew up anywhere except under a rock.... and you think nukes are nonexistant (and would then mean that governments had encountered eachother in deadly arms races, political showdowns, and wars for no real reason) probably nothing less than actually subjecting you to a nuclear blast would convince you otherwise.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 07, 2010, 08:23:56 PM
What people registered with the japanese government?  Where do you get this information?  That's what I'm trying to figure out here.  There's a whole lot of tale-telling, and nothing to back it up.

What documentaries?  Clearly, you've seen them, so what are they, and what are these references that you know of?

I'm still waiting for someone to produce the eye witness accounts.  If everyone is so sure as to their existence, then it shouldn't be hard to remember where you found this information.

I'll assume you're not a troll and actually do live under a rock.

Japan is at least 95pct native, you want me to procure a non-Japanese citizen with sufficient memory that they can retell every last detail from the blast site of a bomb that detonated over 60 years ago, just to get rid of bias which for you will always exist? Shall I bring him or her in person? Show you their papers to prove that they do not work for the government followed by a genealogy report to demonstrate that no relatives living or dead within the 100 years had Conspiracy motives? Your request is completely insane Mizzle! Unless it supports your ideology, this forum has made it abundently clear that articles, peer reviewed articles with documented experiments, photographs, videos, eye-witness accounts, none are fair game when it comes to proving anything.

So as I said, get yourself a Geiger counter and visit the places yourself. Snap... those were made by scientists who have a vested interest in nuclear physics -- can't use devices that promote the conspiracy!

Do an amazon.com search, I'm sure you can find at least a handful of documentaries on WWII. Even the history channel on cable television here in the states show WWII footage constantly. If you ever bothered to watch a documentary, you might notice that when people interview witnesses, they usually have names, and quotes from people are referenced as well. In fact any sort of footage or visual or whatever must be cited if it isn't first hand.

EDIT: here's a few for starters

Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII: A Tale of Two Cities (1946) [DVD] - Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima Nagasaki Aftermath Including Ground Zero & Bomb Victims (DVD - 2008)
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=wwii+hiroshima&x=13&y=23

History -- Man, Moment, Machine: Ultimate Weapon: Oppenheimer and the Atomic Bomb
http://www.amazon.com/History-Man-Moment-Machine-Oppenheimer/dp/B002GYWCF4/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1270698117&sr=1-4

World War II in Japan Documentary and Newsreel Film Library 2 Dvds- Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Japanese Internment, Historic Battles
http://www.amazon.com/Documentary-Newsreel-Hiroshima-Nagasaki-Internment/dp/B000NL8PMG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1270698117&sr=1-5
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 07, 2010, 08:47:43 PM
You do the damned amazon search, it's your side of the discussion.  I'm dying to know where exactly you're getting your 'evidence' from. 

From the link, which is the first account anyone has bothered to link to:
"In contrast, however, the Occupation authorities imposed psycho-social political oppression on Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors. For example, within days of Japan’s formal surrender they introduced a Press Code in Japan. This permitted reporting on the technological triumph of the atomic bomb by the US but censored anything that might be considered to be criticism of the United States. The occupation authorities confiscated diaries, poems, photographs, movie film, medical specimens, slides for microscopes and doctors’ records on the treatment of radiation, some 32,000 items in all. Autopsies by Japanese doctors had to be done secretly in primitive conditions and the results passed from hand to hand under threat of prosecution. Because of this politically hostile milieu, survivors were deprived of the normal and needed grieving process following their massive trauma and had to repress their suffering in silence and isolation."
According to convential 'knowledge,' this person should have:
a) Been killed from the shockwave almost immediately.
b) Died in the resulting firestorm almost immediately.
c) Died from radiation posioning almost immediately.
She accounts that she was about a mile from ground zero.  Well within the instant/near instant death range of the bomb.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 07, 2010, 08:51:12 PM
I edited my post a while back, but right there are some links for you.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 07, 2010, 08:53:31 PM
You do the damned amazon search, it's your side of the discussion.  I'm dying to know where exactly you're getting your 'evidence' from. 

From the link, which is the first account anyone has bothered to link to:
"In contrast, however, the Occupation authorities imposed psycho-social political oppression on Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors. For example, within days of Japan’s formal surrender they introduced a Press Code in Japan. This permitted reporting on the technological triumph of the atomic bomb by the US but censored anything that might be considered to be criticism of the United States. The occupation authorities confiscated diaries, poems, photographs, movie film, medical specimens, slides for microscopes and doctors’ records on the treatment of radiation, some 32,000 items in all. Autopsies by Japanese doctors had to be done secretly in primitive conditions and the results passed from hand to hand under threat of prosecution. Because of this politically hostile milieu, survivors were deprived of the normal and needed grieving process following their massive trauma and had to repress their suffering in silence and isolation."
According to convential 'knowledge,' this person should have:
a) Been killed from the shockwave almost immediately.
b) Died in the resulting firestorm almost immediately.
c) Died from radiation posioning almost immediately.
She accounts that she was about a mile from ground zero.  Well within the instant/near instant death range of the bomb.

Your conventional knowledge assumes that the entire area was affected equally. Bombs aren't pretty, even nuclear bombs are susceptible to sloppy and inconsistent damage.

For more detail, here's a link to a blast report done by PBS. An excerpt follows.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/1mtblast.html
The fission bomb detonated over Hiroshima had an explosive blast equivalent to 12,500 tons of TNT. A 1 megaton hydrogen bomb, hypothetically detonated on the earth's surface, has about 80 times the blast power of that 1945 explosion.

Radius of destructive circle: 1.7 miles
12 pounds per square inch

At the center lies a crater 200 feet deep and 1000 feet in diameter. The rim of this crater is 1,000 feet wide and is composed of highly radioactive soil and debris. Nothing recognizable remains within about 3,200 feet (0.6 miles) from the center, except, perhaps, the remains of some buildings' foundations. At 1.7 miles, only some of the strongest buildings -- those made of reinforced, poured concrete -- are still standing. Ninety-eight percent of the population in this area are dead.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 07, 2010, 09:01:03 PM
She claimed she was 'inside the mushroom cloud.'  The radiation poisioning alone should have been very much more than enough.
I've seen plenty of film from WWII.  Do these documentaries include interviews of survivors at the time?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 07, 2010, 09:10:14 PM
She claimed she was 'inside the mushroom cloud.'  The radiation poisioning alone should have been very much more than enough.
I've seen plenty of film from WWII.  Do these documentaries include interviews of survivors at the time?

I'll be nice here and not demand that you unequivically prove how much radiation she was exposed to in her precise spot along with figures as to how much radiation is necessary to kill someone over x amount of time.

For many people, the radiation poisoning was enough. For many people, the heat blast was enough. In fact, for many people, the trauma was enough. That does not discount her survival; she is incredibly fortunate to be alive.

I'm not going to preview these movies for you. The obvious answer is yes -- who else are they going to use as eye witnesses, President Truman and leprechauns?

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Death-T on April 07, 2010, 09:19:16 PM
Has anyone given a precise motive for this conspiracy.... or it just a repeat of the general FES response to the same question posed to the FET - /shurg/ "Cuz, da money. -Lulz"
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Death-T on April 07, 2010, 09:25:47 PM
Has anyone given a precise motive for this conspiracy.... or it just a repeat of the general FES response to the same question posed to the FET - /shurg/ "Cuz, da money. -Lulz"

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his lackeys run this forum board. FE is the Conspiracy! According to them, they will be the first ones to create a real atomic bomb.  :o

The sad thing is.... that actually makes more sense that a great many things the FESers have posted. So is humanity.... two legs are rushing forward in progress... while one pinky toe is retarded (in movement - wink-wink) and holds us back from our full potential.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on April 07, 2010, 11:14:38 PM
It is pretty sad, since many FETs dont believe in the existence of Atoms either, so it is a little hard to explain the mechanics of radiation, fusion, or fission to them.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: malashenko on April 07, 2010, 11:20:46 PM
You ask the survivors.
There don't have to be any survivors in fact.  All it would take are a few journalists that 'went' there to fabricate a story.
What villagers saw the plane and explosions?  A handful of people that probably don't exist, that's who.

You need to think about the possibility in the light of conspiracy.
If you can link to eye witness accounts of verifiable people, not affiliated with the US Government, then we've got something.  Until then, all the accounts are make-believe propaganda.

Why don't I believe they exist?  Outside of TV and movies, I've seen absolutely zero evidence to their existence.  I don't just mean I personally haven't seen them, I'm talking about scientific data and reports which don't exist.

There's simply no way that nuclear weapons don't exist. Nuclear power works, we know for a fact that the mechanics behind them are sound, and there's several well documented tests, and of course the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

I've already explained to you the lack of bombers necessary to create a firestorm in Hiroshima, but there's another flaw in your explanation. Assuming there were another hundred bombers stationed within range of Japan, realize that their bombing runs have to be space weeks apart due to the long task of rearmament and dealing with individual wear and tear. That's why Hiroshima couldn't have been bombed by conventional weapons and produced the same effect, but note that the bombing of Nagasaki took place only three days later. Considering that it took up to two weeks to get a small force of around 50 bombers to attack Tokyo, it's quite clear that the scenario you present, with the government just covering it up, is impossible.

Denying blatantly verified facts that are supported by science as a whole, and to respond with such ridiculous claims, is not by any means beneficial. You simply don't deny the key deterrent to war between the US and USSR. Both sides had the largest surveillance networks in history so they verified the existence of each others' weapons. Don't give me a line about how they were in cahoots, because they were ideologically opposed on a fundamental level.

For some more evidence to this non-issue of a phenomena, check here: The Manhattan Project (http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/publications/DE99001330.pdf)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 07, 2010, 11:21:21 PM
It is pretty sad, since many FETs dont believe in the existence of Atoms either, so it is a little hard to explain the mechanics of radiation, fusion, or fission to them.

All they wanted was a flat earth! The dominoes just keep falling.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Death-T on April 08, 2010, 07:00:02 AM
It is pretty sad, since many FETs dont believe in the existence of Atoms either, so it is a little hard to explain the mechanics of radiation, fusion, or fission to them.

Wait...... you joking right? Then what is everything made of then? Getting rid of the atom basically screws up a lot of explainations we have for the world (such as current).... have they supplemented an explaination for these now unexplained phenomena in the FET? Or does this go under the same line as "How could there be craters on the face of the moon?"
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 08, 2010, 07:54:02 AM
I'm just dying to know where everyone is getting all of the information.  I've seen 1 link to 1 eyewitness account, which may or may not be a real account of something that actually happened.
The way everyone pitches it, there should be overwhelming evidence of all natures, however most people here just say 'how can you deny it?'
Why do you think WWII was so well filmed anyway?  How do you think stories and pictures were transmitted during the pacific campaign?  It was all supported by the US government.  Do you actually think anything we didn't want the masses to hear about would have actually made it into the papers?

Everyone seems to think the conspiracy has to be bigger than it really is.
It only takes a few government plants, and the media to sell a conspiracy.  You don't need hundreds of eye witnesses, you only need a couple corrupt reporters to 'document' these witnesses.  Sure, there are flag-baring puppets like the eyewitness account linked to previously, but those are clearly not the majority.

My policy stands:  Everything that came out of the US Government circa 1910-present has been the boldest of lies.
If you don't think the people at the top are corrupt, you're just not thinking clearly.
If nuclear weapons didn't exist, pepole would flip the bird to the US and the USSR, and not live in oppressive fear.  That's precisely why I don't think they exist.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 08, 2010, 08:30:12 AM
I'm just dying to know where everyone is getting all of the information.  I've seen 1 link to 1 eyewitness account, which may or may not be a real account of something that actually happened.
The way everyone pitches it, there should be overwhelming evidence of all natures, however most people here just say 'how can you deny it?'
Why do you think WWII was so well filmed anyway?  How do you think stories and pictures were transmitted during the pacific campaign?  It was all supported by the US government.  Do you actually think anything we didn't want the masses to hear about would have actually made it into the papers?

Everyone seems to think the conspiracy has to be bigger than it really is.
It only takes a few government plants, and the media to sell a conspiracy.  You don't need hundreds of eye witnesses, you only need a couple corrupt reporters to 'document' these witnesses.  Sure, there are flag-baring puppets like the eyewitness account linked to previously, but those are clearly not the majority.

My policy stands:  Everything that came out of the US Government circa 1910-present has been the boldest of lies.
If you don't think the people at the top are corrupt, you're just not thinking clearly.
If nuclear weapons didn't exist, pepole would flip the bird to the US and the USSR, and not live in oppressive fear.  That's precisely why I don't think they exist.

I'll play your game Mizzle.

Prove that the eyewitness from the report that Death linked you is somehow representing the Conspiracy and is entirely untrue or can be disqualified. You aren't even capable of demonstrating that the nuclear blast should have killed her outright, without question.

You can claim everyone is in on this conspiracy, but that is simply groundless accusation. In this wonderful world of yours, the only credible person is yourself and people that happen to share your opinion. That alone makes anything you say rather dubious, since we are required to take YOUR word as evidence, despite our evidence never meeting your impossible standard. We have posted photographs and videos and detailed explanations on how Hiroshima couldn't have possibly been firebombed; we've given you an eye witness account, we've given you links to footage, what could possibly satisfy your theory? It is simply not possible to disprove anything when your cynicism makes EVERY last bit of evidence invalid or questionable.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 08, 2010, 08:40:48 AM
I'm just dying to know where everyone is getting all of the information.  I've seen 1 link to 1 eyewitness account, which may or may not be a real account of something that actually happened.
The way everyone pitches it, there should be overwhelming evidence of all natures, however most people here just say 'how can you deny it?'
Why do you think WWII was so well filmed anyway?  How do you think stories and pictures were transmitted during the pacific campaign?  It was all supported by the US government.  Do you actually think anything we didn't want the masses to hear about would have actually made it into the papers?

Everyone seems to think the conspiracy has to be bigger than it really is.
It only takes a few government plants, and the media to sell a conspiracy.  You don't need hundreds of eye witnesses, you only need a couple corrupt reporters to 'document' these witnesses.  Sure, there are flag-baring puppets like the eyewitness account linked to previously, but those are clearly not the majority.

My policy stands:  Everything that came out of the US Government circa 1910-present has been the boldest of lies.
If you don't think the people at the top are corrupt, you're just not thinking clearly.
If nuclear weapons didn't exist, pepole would flip the bird to the US and the USSR, and not live in oppressive fear.  That's precisely why I don't think they exist.

I'll play your game Mizzle.

Prove that the eyewitness from the report that Death linked you is somehow representing the Conspiracy and is entirely untrue or can be disqualified. You aren't even capable of demonstrating that the nuclear blast should have killed her outright, without question.

You can claim everyone is in on this conspiracy, but that is simply groundless accusation. We've given you an eye witness account, we've given you links to footage, what could possibly satisfy your theory? It is simply not possible to disprove anything when your cynicism makes EVERY bit of evidence invalid.
I don't seek to either prove or disprove the existence of nuclear weapons.  I say that there is clearly room for conspiracy, whether there is one or not.  I choose to believe there is, and it's unlikely any amount of 'evidence' will change my mind either way.  What I want to know is what exactly everyone is basing their opinions on, other than word of mouth.  Let's be honest, did you read that lady's account, or even know of it, before you posted the link here?  Likely not.  That's my point.  People have all accepted reality, and then only seek out information to account for their predetermined beliefs.  It's likely you believed in nuclear weapons before you were presented with any evidence other than a few videos/pictures and the popular belief that they are real.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 08, 2010, 08:48:31 AM
I'm just dying to know where everyone is getting all of the information.  I've seen 1 link to 1 eyewitness account, which may or may not be a real account of something that actually happened.
The way everyone pitches it, there should be overwhelming evidence of all natures, however most people here just say 'how can you deny it?'
Why do you think WWII was so well filmed anyway?  How do you think stories and pictures were transmitted during the pacific campaign?  It was all supported by the US government.  Do you actually think anything we didn't want the masses to hear about would have actually made it into the papers?

Everyone seems to think the conspiracy has to be bigger than it really is.
It only takes a few government plants, and the media to sell a conspiracy.  You don't need hundreds of eye witnesses, you only need a couple corrupt reporters to 'document' these witnesses.  Sure, there are flag-baring puppets like the eyewitness account linked to previously, but those are clearly not the majority.

My policy stands:  Everything that came out of the US Government circa 1910-present has been the boldest of lies.
If you don't think the people at the top are corrupt, you're just not thinking clearly.
If nuclear weapons didn't exist, pepole would flip the bird to the US and the USSR, and not live in oppressive fear.  That's precisely why I don't think they exist.

I'll play your game Mizzle.

Prove that the eyewitness from the report that Death linked you is somehow representing the Conspiracy and is entirely untrue or can be disqualified. You aren't even capable of demonstrating that the nuclear blast should have killed her outright, without question.

You can claim everyone is in on this conspiracy, but that is simply groundless accusation. We've given you an eye witness account, we've given you links to footage, what could possibly satisfy your theory? It is simply not possible to disprove anything when your cynicism makes EVERY bit of evidence invalid.
I don't seek to either prove or disprove the existence of nuclear weapons.  I say that there is clearly room for conspiracy, whether there is one or not.  I choose to believe there is, and it's unlikely any amount of 'evidence' will change my mind either way.  What I want to know is what exactly everyone is basing their opinions on, other than word of mouth.  Let's be honest, did you read that lady's account, or even know of it, before you posted the link here?  Likely not.  That's my point.  People have all accepted reality, and then only seek out information to account for their predetermined beliefs.  It's likely you believed in nuclear weapons before you were presented with any evidence other than a few videos/pictures and the popular belief that they are real.

In all fairness, I have remarkably more important things to do than prove or disprove every single statement that anyone has ever made in human history. To assume that such things are questionable when there are so many lines of evidence that support them (working nuclear power plants, photon shadows from blasts, eye witnesses, higher cancer rates in these zones, etc etc) is not simply foolish but downright stupidity. Claiming conspiracy when there is no evidence to support it -- beyond someone having an agenda -- is a copout, and always will be. It is clear that motives trump any and all real evidence in your world, despite no evidence proving that there is in fact a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 08, 2010, 09:16:13 AM
While I don't disagree with your position on the matter, you didn't answer my question of whether or not you knew of this account before you bothered to look it up.
I consider the track records of lying and deceit enough evidence to make this type of propaganda possible.  If you think the former USSR and Russia are honest, non-manipulating entities, then good for you.  If you think you can believe everything the US government tells you, then good for you.
I know complete and utter bullshit when I see it.  Just because I don't have the resources to dig up evidence to the conspiracy doesn't mean it's not there.
If you want a great example of lies and deceit, just look at what's going on in Greece right now with their little financial crisis.  Governments lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want.  Always have, always will.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 08, 2010, 09:25:01 AM
While I don't disagree with your position on the matter, you didn't answer my question of whether or not you knew of this account before you bothered to look it up.
I consider the track records of lying and deceit enough evidence to make this type of propaganda possible.  If you think the former USSR and Russia are honest, non-manipulating entities, then good for you.  If you think you can believe everything the US government tells you, then good for you.
I know complete and utter bullshit when I see it.  Just because I don't have the resources to dig up evidence to the conspiracy doesn't mean it's not there.
If you want a great example of lies and deceit, just look at what's going on in Greece right now with their little financial crisis.  Governments lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want.  Always have, always will.

Death is the one who linked the woman's article. I've never read her account prior to when he posted it. However, I have read and seen plenty of other accounts that are similar to hers.

Your reasoning is flawed from the beginning. I have no problem admitting that governments sometimes hide or downplay things. The line that I draw however, is how far they are willing to go to deceive the public. You draw upon one single line of 'evidence' -- conspiracy motive -- rational people do not and require stricter standards. Nuclear weapons are feasible for many many reasons. The concept of how the bomb works in addition to the nuclear physics is mathematically sound (I'm not going to argue phd level physics with someone who doesn't even have a bs), there are abundant eye witnesses that travel around today, we have footage, seismic data, residual radiation, and whatever else from the scientific and private sectors. To say that the government can fool every last person in the public (minus 100 people worldwide) and maintain this lie for decades is pushing for too much. Not to mention that the Cold War ended decades ago, and China, who has less than amiable relations with us, hasn't exposed the US to the international community is absurd. Plus every other country that has a beef against the US or Russia -- it would be public knowledge at this point.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Death-T on April 08, 2010, 09:40:19 AM
While I don't disagree with your position on the matter, you didn't answer my question of whether or not you knew of this account before you bothered to look it up.
I consider the track records of lying and deceit enough evidence to make this type of propaganda possible.  If you think the former USSR and Russia are honest, non-manipulating entities, then good for you.  If you think you can believe everything the US government tells you, then good for you.
I know complete and utter bullshit when I see it.  Just because I don't have the resources to dig up evidence to the conspiracy doesn't mean it's not there.
If you want a great example of lies and deceit, just look at what's going on in Greece right now with their little financial crisis.  Governments lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want.  Always have, always will.

That doesn't mean they would invent a weapons system for no good reason.


Lets just say the nuclear weapons and the surrounding tech from it doesn't exist -

1 - That means the US and the Soviet have faced off in several matters that have claimed lives for no apparent reason.

2 - That the "nuclear club" of the world have come to an understanding by all saying they have nukes and frequently show off dummy missiles, facilities, and personal - all of which costs a lot of money... for no real purpose then misiformation.

3 - They invented this weapon system... why? Certainly not to cover a regular bombing of two cities - that serves no point beyond trying to make yourself look more powerfully and then makes that purpose impotent when someone else claims to have the weapon and can replicate and outdue your own fake weapon's yield. Why keep it up?

4 - The US is willing allowing rouge nations that claim now to have nukes a bargaining chip for a weapon they don't have. Why keep the charade up? It serves no real purpose and keeps putting you in needless confrontations and bargaining tables.

5 - Would it not be better if the USSR proved that the US didn't invent the "bomb" by exposing them? They could have - they had spies throughtout the Manhatten project, which is why they got the bomb so quickly. Why say that you also have the fake weapon, when you can expose the US as a fraud (gaining a political victory in the Cold War) and then not have to spend piles of money continuing the charade?

6 - The Japanese had suffered many bombing radis beforehand and had seen Tokyo itself burn before its eyes. Why would a regular bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki suddenly make them want to surrender if it wasn't something special? They had already been adament about standing firm before the US invasion by militarizing the coastline with bunkers and even concealed landingstrips in the side of cliffs for aircraft? Why give up if your reserve had hold up to this point unblinkingly? Seemingly that means in your scenario - that means that, for whatever reason, the Japanese suddenly decided to give up and endorsed a secret messgase from the US and said a new and terrible weapon had been unleashed.... why?

Being able to determine motive is a critical foundation to any conspiracy theory.... your's is severely lacking.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 08, 2010, 09:44:08 AM

Death is the one who linked the woman's article. I've never read her account prior to when he posted it. However, I have read and seen plenty of other accounts that are similar to hers.

Your reasoning is flawed from the beginning. I have no problem admitting that governments sometimes hide or downplay things. The line that I draw however, is how far they are willing to go to deceive the public. You draw upon one single line of 'evidence' -- conspiracy motive -- rational people do not and require stricter standards. Nuclear weapons are feasible for many many reasons. The nuclear physics is mathematically sound (I'm not going to argue phd level physics with someone who doesn't even have a bs), there are abundant eye witnesses that travel around today, we have footage, seismic data, residual radiation, and whatever else from the scientific and private sectors. To say that the government can fool every last person in the public (minus 100 people worldwide) and maintain this lie for decades is pushing for too much. Not to mention that the Cold War ended decades ago, and China, who has less than amiable relations with us, hasn't exposed the US is absurd. Plus every other country that has a beef against the US or Russia -- it would be public knowledge at this point.

Holy crap...
"The nuclear physics is mathematically sound (I'm not going to argue phd level physics with someone who doesn't even have a bs), there are abundant eye witnesses that travel around today, we have footage, seismic data, residual radiation, and whatever else from the scientific and private sectors. "

What seismic data?  That's what I'm talking about.  Where did you get this information, and was it third party or first?  I demand to know about this seismic data that exists.  I have heard this many times already, and NOTHING has been presented to support such 'evidence' even exists.
You are just pandering, not presenting.
How do you know the mathematics for the nuclear weapons is solid?  Have you worked out these equations yourself?  This type of statement requires these considerations.  Additionally, just because something is possible on paper, doesn't mean it's possible in practice.
Residual radiation?  Has this been indepenedently verified, and where are your sources?
Additionally, I only want to know about information that was presented to you before you posted this last statement, including these 'eyewitness accounts.'

I don't believe in collective wisdome anymore.  I need verifiable fact.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 08, 2010, 09:57:33 AM

That doesn't mean they would invent a weapons system for no good reason.

1 - That means the US and the Soviet have faced off in several matters that have claimed lives for no apparent reason.

2 - That the "nuclear club" of the world have come to an understanding by all saying they have nukes and frequently show off dummy missiles, facilities, and personal - all of which costs a lot of money... for no real purpose then misiformation.

3 - They invented this weapon system... why? Certainly not to cover a regular bombing of two cities - that serves no point beyond trying to make yourself look more powerfully and then makes that purpose impotent when someone else claims to have the weapon and can replicate and outdue your own fake weapon's yield. Why keep it up?

4 - The US is willing allowing rouge nations that claim now to have nukes a bargaining chip for a weapon they don't have. Why keep the charade up? It serves no real purpose and keeps putting you in needless confrontations and bargaining tables.

5 - Would it not be better if the USSR proved that the US didn't invent the "bomb" by exposing them? They could have - they had spies throughtout the Manhatten project, which is why they got the bomb so quickly. Why say that you also have the fake weapon, when you can expose the US as a fraud (gaining a political victory in the Cold War) and then not have to spend piles of money continuing the charade?

6 - The Japanese had suffered many bombing radis beforehand and had seen Tokyo itself burn before its eyes. Why would a regular bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki suddenly make them want to surrender if it wasn't something special? They had already been adament about standing firm before the US invasion by militarizing the coastline with bunkers and even concealed landingstrips in the side of cliffs for aircraft? Why give up if your reserve had hold up to this point unblinkingly? Seemingly that means in your scenario - that means that, for whatever reason, the Japanese suddenly decided to give up and endorsed a secret messgase from the US and said a new and terrible weapon had been unleashed.... why?

Being able to determine motive is a critical foundation to any conspiracy theory.... your's is severely lacking.
1 - They have faced off for no apparent reason other than 'stopping the spread of communism.'  Is communism really so bad we waged war in various lesser nations throughout history?  The reasoning for stopping the spread of communism isn't apparent to me.
2 - All costs a lot of money?  Well, where does government get it's taxes from?  The people.  It's not like it's spending it's own money.  The people in power will spend as much as necessary to maintain every lie they've told.  Why wouldn't they?
3 - Why keep it up?  Oppression through fear.
4 - What rogue nations?  You mean, North Korea, who's in China's pocket?  China, who's in Russia's pocket?  In fact, no rogue nations have nukes.  Pawns of super powers are allowed to have them to protect the interests of the super powers abroad.
5 - Would it have been better is very subjective, but no.  Wouldn't it have been better if we didn't fight in Vietnam and Korea?  Wouldn't it have been better if we just stayed the hell out of WWI and WWII in the first place?  Either way, if there is an agreement, if one side exposes the other side, both ends lose control over the weapons that don't exist, because each side could make the same exact claims.  As far as spies go, you watch too many movies.  And again, it's not the government's money to spend in the first place, why the hell do they care how much they spend?  That's right, they don't.
6 - Why would the Japanese just suddenly give up?  Perhaps they realized there would be no ground invasion, and the US was just going to fire-bomb them into oblivion.  We obviously showed no remorse for civilian casualties throughout the entire course of the war.  They probably realized we were willing to completely exterminate them if they didn't throw in the towel.  When you realize that your enemy is out for the lust of blood and has the undeniable capability to finish you off, you quit.  With or without a new type of bomb.  Dead people are dead people.  Japan is infamously shorthanded in the natural resource department, and they very well could have been out of the means to resist.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 08, 2010, 10:12:36 AM

Death is the one who linked the woman's article. I've never read her account prior to when he posted it. However, I have read and seen plenty of other accounts that are similar to hers.

Your reasoning is flawed from the beginning. I have no problem admitting that governments sometimes hide or downplay things. The line that I draw however, is how far they are willing to go to deceive the public. You draw upon one single line of 'evidence' -- conspiracy motive -- rational people do not and require stricter standards. Nuclear weapons are feasible for many many reasons. The nuclear physics is mathematically sound (I'm not going to argue phd level physics with someone who doesn't even have a bs), there are abundant eye witnesses that travel around today, we have footage, seismic data, residual radiation, and whatever else from the scientific and private sectors. To say that the government can fool every last person in the public (minus 100 people worldwide) and maintain this lie for decades is pushing for too much. Not to mention that the Cold War ended decades ago, and China, who has less than amiable relations with us, hasn't exposed the US is absurd. Plus every other country that has a beef against the US or Russia -- it would be public knowledge at this point.

Holy crap...
"The nuclear physics is mathematically sound (I'm not going to argue phd level physics with someone who doesn't even have a bs), there are abundant eye witnesses that travel around today, we have footage, seismic data, residual radiation, and whatever else from the scientific and private sectors. "

What seismic data?  That's what I'm talking about.  Where did you get this information, and was it third party or first?  I demand to know about this seismic data that exists.  I have heard this many times already, and NOTHING has been presented to support such 'evidence' even exists.
You are just pandering, not presenting.
How do you know the mathematics for the nuclear weapons is solid?  Have you worked out these equations yourself?  This type of statement requires these considerations.  Additionally, just because something is possible on paper, doesn't mean it's possible in practice.
Residual radiation?  Has this been indepenedently verified, and where are your sources?
Additionally, I only want to know about information that was presented to you before you posted this last statement, including these 'eyewitness accounts.'

I don't believe in collective wisdome anymore.  I need verifiable fact.

Okay... I've already mentioned Geiger counters and told you to independently verify the residual radiation thing.

What makes you think that you could differentiate the seismic qualities of a nuclear bomb versus an earthquake? Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time and pull out data that you can't make sense of in the first place. For the same reason, I'm not going to explain Einstein's equations to someone who has poor working knowledge of university level physics or mathematics.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 08, 2010, 10:21:14 AM

Death is the one who linked the woman's article. I've never read her account prior to when he posted it. However, I have read and seen plenty of other accounts that are similar to hers.

Your reasoning is flawed from the beginning. I have no problem admitting that governments sometimes hide or downplay things. The line that I draw however, is how far they are willing to go to deceive the public. You draw upon one single line of 'evidence' -- conspiracy motive -- rational people do not and require stricter standards. Nuclear weapons are feasible for many many reasons. The nuclear physics is mathematically sound (I'm not going to argue phd level physics with someone who doesn't even have a bs), there are abundant eye witnesses that travel around today, we have footage, seismic data, residual radiation, and whatever else from the scientific and private sectors. To say that the government can fool every last person in the public (minus 100 people worldwide) and maintain this lie for decades is pushing for too much. Not to mention that the Cold War ended decades ago, and China, who has less than amiable relations with us, hasn't exposed the US is absurd. Plus every other country that has a beef against the US or Russia -- it would be public knowledge at this point.

Holy crap...
"The nuclear physics is mathematically sound (I'm not going to argue phd level physics with someone who doesn't even have a bs), there are abundant eye witnesses that travel around today, we have footage, seismic data, residual radiation, and whatever else from the scientific and private sectors. "

What seismic data?  That's what I'm talking about.  Where did you get this information, and was it third party or first?  I demand to know about this seismic data that exists.  I have heard this many times already, and NOTHING has been presented to support such 'evidence' even exists.
You are just pandering, not presenting.
How do you know the mathematics for the nuclear weapons is solid?  Have you worked out these equations yourself?  This type of statement requires these considerations.  Additionally, just because something is possible on paper, doesn't mean it's possible in practice.
Residual radiation?  Has this been indepenedently verified, and where are your sources?
Additionally, I only want to know about information that was presented to you before you posted this last statement, including these 'eyewitness accounts.'

I don't believe in collective wisdome anymore.  I need verifiable fact.

Okay... I've already mentioned Geiger counters and told you to independently verify the residual radiation thing.

What makes you think that you could differentiate the seismic qualities of a nuclear bomb versus an earthquake? Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time and pull out data that you can't make sense of in the first place. For the same reason, I'm not going to explain Einstein's equations to someone who has poor working knowledge of university level physics or mathematics.
I'm not asking you to prove it to me, I'm curious as to what evidence drew you to these conclusions?  Did you actually see these seismic results, or did you just hear about them in a documentary or by word of mouth?  Did you watch/read any eye witness accounts, or did you just accept that there are some without objectively verifying their existence?  I don't need to you explain any equations to me, I want to know, did you verify the math yourself, or did you just accept them because they are accepted?
I unfortunately don't own a Geiger counter, I just want to know where you're getting your info from.  If you say that you can take measurements there, okay, I will believe you, but first I need to know where you heard that this will work.  Where are the reports and documents substantiating this position?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 08, 2010, 10:32:37 AM

Death is the one who linked the woman's article. I've never read her account prior to when he posted it. However, I have read and seen plenty of other accounts that are similar to hers.

Your reasoning is flawed from the beginning. I have no problem admitting that governments sometimes hide or downplay things. The line that I draw however, is how far they are willing to go to deceive the public. You draw upon one single line of 'evidence' -- conspiracy motive -- rational people do not and require stricter standards. Nuclear weapons are feasible for many many reasons. The nuclear physics is mathematically sound (I'm not going to argue phd level physics with someone who doesn't even have a bs), there are abundant eye witnesses that travel around today, we have footage, seismic data, residual radiation, and whatever else from the scientific and private sectors. To say that the government can fool every last person in the public (minus 100 people worldwide) and maintain this lie for decades is pushing for too much. Not to mention that the Cold War ended decades ago, and China, who has less than amiable relations with us, hasn't exposed the US is absurd. Plus every other country that has a beef against the US or Russia -- it would be public knowledge at this point.

Holy crap...
"The nuclear physics is mathematically sound (I'm not going to argue phd level physics with someone who doesn't even have a bs), there are abundant eye witnesses that travel around today, we have footage, seismic data, residual radiation, and whatever else from the scientific and private sectors. "

What seismic data?  That's what I'm talking about.  Where did you get this information, and was it third party or first?  I demand to know about this seismic data that exists.  I have heard this many times already, and NOTHING has been presented to support such 'evidence' even exists.
You are just pandering, not presenting.
How do you know the mathematics for the nuclear weapons is solid?  Have you worked out these equations yourself?  This type of statement requires these considerations.  Additionally, just because something is possible on paper, doesn't mean it's possible in practice.
Residual radiation?  Has this been indepenedently verified, and where are your sources?
Additionally, I only want to know about information that was presented to you before you posted this last statement, including these 'eyewitness accounts.'

I don't believe in collective wisdome anymore.  I need verifiable fact.

Okay... I've already mentioned Geiger counters and told you to independently verify the residual radiation thing.

What makes you think that you could differentiate the seismic qualities of a nuclear bomb versus an earthquake? Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time and pull out data that you can't make sense of in the first place. For the same reason, I'm not going to explain Einstein's equations to someone who has poor working knowledge of university level physics or mathematics.
I'm not asking you to prove it to me, I'm curious as to what evidence drew you to these conclusions?  Did you actually see these seismic results, or did you just hear about them in a documentary or by word of mouth?  Did you watch/read any eye witness accounts, or did you just accept that there are some without objectively verifying their existence?  I don't need to you explain any equations to me, I want to know, did you verify the math yourself, or did you just accept them because they are accepted?
I unfortunately don't own a Geiger counter, I just want to know where you're getting your info from.  If you say that you can take measurements there, okay, I will believe you, but first I need to know where you heard that this will work.  Where are the reports and documents substantiating this position?

The geophysics department is right across the hallway. For an undergrad project I had do a fair bit of seismic analysis, so I've actually had the opportunity to examine the data from the thousands of interlinked seismic stations that we monitor. One of the things you have to do is isolate your data. One of the first things you learn is how to separate different seismic events.

Nuclear reactors and test sites are observed almost constantly. Scientists often monitor these sites to see how the environment is coping and what sort of effects long term exposure has to animal life. Go to an academic database and look up Chernobyl or Hiroshima etc. Detailed reports follow.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 08, 2010, 10:45:07 AM
I don't doubt your academic abilities or greater knowledge in seismic data interpretation.  I'm curious, did you actually see these Hiroshima reports yourself?  If not, where did you hear of them?
Someone else claimed that many independent seismic observatories around the world registered the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts, but failed to link to this information or even reveal where this information was initially given to the individual.
If they exist, they exist.  If it's in a report somewhere you saw offline, and you saw the data from these observatories, that will suffice for me.  I just want to know where this argument is based.  You can't just say 'there are seismic records of the blasts' and offer no truth to the fact.
Again, I only want to know about what convinced you of their existence in the first place.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 08, 2010, 11:03:31 AM
I don't doubt your academic abilities or greater knowledge in seismic data interpretation.  I'm curious, did you actually see these Hiroshima reports yourself?  If not, where did you hear of them?
Someone else claimed that many independent seismic observatories around the world registered the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts, but failed to link to this information or even reveal where this information was initially given to the individual.
If they exist, they exist.  If it's in a report somewhere you saw offline, and you saw the data from these observatories, that will suffice for me.  I just want to know where this argument is based.  You can't just say 'there are seismic records of the blasts' and offer no truth to the fact.
Again, I only want to know about what convinced you of their existence in the first place.

If there were no nuclear bomb detonations, then it follows that a nuclear bomb seismic event would not exist. Since there are in fact unique seismic signatures that coincide only with reported nuclear bomb detonations, a nuclear bomb must have detonated. Even if a country tries to hide nuclear bomb testing from the public, seismologists around the world are the first people to know that testing took place.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Death-T on April 08, 2010, 11:05:42 AM

1 - They have faced off for no apparent reason other than 'stopping the spread of communism.'  Is communism really so bad we waged war in various lesser nations throughout history?  The reasoning for stopping the spread of communism isn't apparent to me.
2 - All costs a lot of money?  Well, where does government get it's taxes from?  The people.  It's not like it's spending it's own money.  The people in power will spend as much as necessary to maintain every lie they've told.  Why wouldn't they?
3 - Why keep it up?  Oppression through fear.
4 - What rogue nations?  You mean, North Korea, who's in China's pocket?  China, who's in Russia's pocket?  In fact, no rogue nations have nukes.  Pawns of super powers are allowed to have them to protect the interests of the super powers abroad.
5 - Would it have been better is very subjective, but no.  Wouldn't it have been better if we didn't fight in Vietnam and Korea?  Wouldn't it have been better if we just stayed the hell out of WWI and WWII in the first place?  Either way, if there is an agreement, if one side exposes the other side, both ends lose control over the weapons that don't exist, because each side could make the same exact claims.  As far as spies go, you watch too many movies.  And again, it's not the government's money to spend in the first place, why the hell do they care how much they spend?  That's right, they don't.
6 - Why would the Japanese just suddenly give up?  Perhaps they realized there would be no ground invasion, and the US was just going to fire-bomb them into oblivion.  We obviously showed no remorse for civilian casualties throughout the entire course of the war.  They probably realized we were willing to completely exterminate them if they didn't throw in the towel.  When you realize that your enemy is out for the lust of blood and has the undeniable capability to finish you off, you quit.  With or without a new type of bomb.  Dead people are dead people.  Japan is infamously shorthanded in the natural resource department, and they very well could have been out of the means to resist.

1 - Actually I was talking about the several instances when we faced of with the Soviet Union in regards of nuclear weapons - such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Why keep the charade up if it frequently leads to political standoffs and gives no real benefit then a money hole to dump funds in?

2- How does saying you have nuclear weapons to your people give you power? You say it helps them control their populations better - in what way? Its not like they're threatening their own people with them.

3 - See #2. Add-on- What opporession?

4 - OKay.... but what are these interests that can be supported by saying you have nuclear weapons? In modern history - nuclear weapons have only lead to the super powers being vunerable (and therefore - impotent) in terms of fighting a nuclear state becuase they have the option of utterly devastating you. Why keep up the charade, if the dissolution of nuclear weapons actually removes this power from rouge states and takes away their bargaining chip?

5 - This was your funniest response in my mind. Losing the weapon hardly matters when you don't already have it (USSR right after WW2) and presents an excellent opportunity to humilate your former allies. And the rest of your "argument" is that governments don't care what they spend on.... wow. Great reason... the government feels the need to spend billions to both support the nuclear arvims it has but to have a conspiracy so that everyone thiks it has.... all so it can get in fake fights with other super powers and have rouge nations get a fake bargaining chip so as to weaken its own foreign policy. Great reasoning- top notch stuff.

"As far as spies go, you watch too many movies." - Okay.... not a real reason to countradict the infiltration of the Manhatten Project, but I guess you had to say something. I also find it funny that you believe the world is working together to keep an imaginary weapon system real in the public's eyes... and yet you smirk upon spying activities.... unusual.

6 - The Japanese were well aware that the US wasn't just going to "fire-bomb" them away - no war has ended like that. Thats why we had to invade Germany to end the war - no matter how much we bombed them, they refused to give in until the Russians completely took over Berlin. The Japanese had even more radical mindset and commonly used suicide tactic the even the Waffen SS would a balked at. The fact is, before the nuclear bombs were droped, there was already a significant plan in place to invade Japan by US forces - Operation Downfall.

Japan was a determined and fanatical enemy that used suicide tactics, often charged well fortified lines when defeat was unavoidable, and killed themselves instead of surrender - unless we had used a toally new and devastating weapon to terrify the Japanese hogh command to call for surrender - we would have to invade much in the same way we had to invade the German homeland to end the war. You severely underestimate the guile and fatalism of a determined enemy... that and the fact that had withstood withering bombing before and remain firm. Hell, they built defenses, bunkers, and arifields in the side of cliffs all over the coastline before the bombs were dropper - hardly the mindset of a defeated enemy seeking peace.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 17 November on April 08, 2010, 07:57:35 PM
Alright, I'll go ahead and just bite into this topic then. The explosion in Hiroshima was ... the damage done by the bombs wasn't of burning

If you are going to contribute, then state something other than outright lies.  As Tom Bishop stated much earlier in this thread, the chief destruction in Hiroshima was wooden civilian housing which was indeed burned.  

If you want a more authoritative source for a refutation of your ill informed declarations, then know that your statements blatantly contradict the official reports of the US Army's Chief Investigator - Major deSeversky whose personal responsibility was the inspection and analysis of all the war bombed cities of Japan including Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, et cetera.  

I do not know whether deSeversky's report on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is online, but anyone who is not too lazy can venture to a library and read the public appearance of his first hand analysis which appeared in the February 1946 issue of 'Reader's Digest' under the title 'Atomic Hysteria.'
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on April 08, 2010, 08:03:42 PM
Just curious 17, but what do you think about the movie Day One?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mykael on April 08, 2010, 09:26:15 PM
This thread is lol.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on April 08, 2010, 10:37:53 PM
This thread is lol.
It is.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 17 November on April 08, 2010, 11:01:27 PM
Quote from: Ichimaru Gin
Just curious 17, but what do you think about the movie Day One?

I have not seen the movie nor intend to since it is false because its underlying purpose is the maintenance of a myth and the scientific and war propaganda that accompanied it.  Movies are especially used for propaganda because they do not have to conform to facts.  This particular one seems to go out of its way to precisely imitate every detail including the already widespread myth of nuclear bombs. 

It reminds me of the movie Malcolm X which is historically accurate for the most part including its portrayal of the FBI's enmity with Malcolm X and the hidden character of their operations, but its bias is revealed in its very one sided negative portrayal of Elijah Muhammed and the Nation of Islam whom the movie effectively blames for both the burning of Malcolm's house and his death - rather than the FBI!  Thus are movies used to twist facts and manipulate opinions.

The history of the Manhattan Project can be interesting, but the official version must be put to the torch.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 09, 2010, 12:59:47 AM
I don't doubt your academic abilities or greater knowledge in seismic data interpretation.  I'm curious, did you actually
If there were no nuclear bomb detonations, then it follows that a nuclear bomb seismic event would not exist. Since there are in fact unique seismic signatures that coincide only with reported nuclear bomb detonations, a nuclear bomb must have detonated. Even if a country tries to hide nuclear bomb testing from the public, seismologists around the world are the first people to know that testing took place.
So, it's safe to say you haven't actually ever seen this evidence, you know it 'must exist.'

To Death:
If a government has these ulimate weapons, people will fear them.  The Cuban Missile Crisis was designed to keep the US and Russia scared of impending nuclear war.  While you're just thankful to be alive, you readily hand over personal liberty for 'security.'  See:  9/11
Why wouldn't the Soviets just debunk the fake bombs right after WWII?  Perhaps they felt it advantageous to collaborate.  The Soviet government was abusive and subversive.  If they could manipulate the population, they would.  Clearly, if they wanted a bigger piece of the pie (WWII spoils), they could easily use debunked nukes as a great bargaining chip.

Anyway, I'm still waiting on these seismic readings everyone keeps talking about.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 17 November on April 09, 2010, 02:26:05 AM
Quote from: Mizzle
The Cuban Missile Crisis was designed to keep the US and Russia scared of impending nuclear war.  While you're just thankful to be alive, you readily hand over personal liberty for 'security.' 

...

Why wouldn't the Soviets just debunk the fake bombs right after WWII?  Perhaps they felt it advantageous to collaborate.  The Soviet government was abusive and subversive.  If they could manipulate the population, they would.  Clearly, if they wanted a bigger piece of the pie (WWII spoils), they could easily use debunked nukes as a great bargaining chip.

The capitalist leaders of Stalinist Russia were class allies and partners of the capitalist leaders of the west just like their Romanov predecessors.   

State Capitalism in Russia
By Ygal Cluckstein (Tony Cliff)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm

The west supplied the capitalist Soviet Union with its technology. Among other books, this is also described in

Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development.
By Antony Sutton
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:Western_Technology_&_Soviet_Economic_Development

The control of a small elite and secret group or secret society over both education and the flow of information pertaining to engineering in the United States is described in the classic expose of the engineering industry:

'America by Design'
By David Noble
http://www.amazon.com/America-Design-Technology-Corporate-Capitalism/dp/0195026187/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270804614&sr=1-3

Russia's entire space program was debunked back in the 1960's by Lloyd Malian in his book

'Russia's Space Hoax:  Documented Proof That the Soviet Space Program Has Been Faked'
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Death-T on April 09, 2010, 06:45:06 AM
I don't doubt your academic abilities or greater knowledge in seismic data interpretation.  I'm curious, did you actually
If there were no nuclear bomb detonations, then it follows that a nuclear bomb seismic event would not exist. Since there are in fact unique seismic signatures that coincide only with reported nuclear bomb detonations, a nuclear bomb must have detonated. Even if a country tries to hide nuclear bomb testing from the public, seismologists around the world are the first people to know that testing took place.
So, it's safe to say you haven't actually ever seen this evidence, you know it 'must exist.'

To Death:
If a government has these ulimate weapons, people will fear them.  The Cuban Missile Crisis was designed to keep the US and Russia scared of impending nuclear war.  While you're just thankful to be alive, you readily hand over personal liberty for 'security.'  See:  9/11
Why wouldn't the Soviets just debunk the fake bombs right after WWII?  Perhaps they felt it advantageous to collaborate.  The Soviet government was abusive and subversive.  If they could manipulate the population, they would.  Clearly, if they wanted a bigger piece of the pie (WWII spoils), they could easily use debunked nukes as a great bargaining chip.

Anyway, I'm still waiting on these seismic readings everyone keeps talking about.

/sign/
How did having your government and another locked in a fake fight help them control their populations better? All you said was "theyz would be afraid!" Why would the US gov. need their people to be afriad? They had a good bit of power and I'm pretty sure that shelling out the billions of dollars to keep only the "fake" nuclear arms was not exactly a cost effective method to get your people to listen to you better..... when all you basically said was "Fear the reds, build a bomb shelter, and build more missiles." What personal liberties did we personally give up? All you gave is vague assertion that we somehow became puppets to them.

"Perhaps they felt it advantageous to collaborate."
- WHY? They already had total control over their people! They told them basically everything they were going to do in life and an effective method of propoganda was in place. Why get get yourself into a fake war that would ultimately bankrupt your regime... if the alternate ends with the US & Japan embrassed, no WMDs to stop your tanks from rolling over Europe (see deterance), and eliminates the possiblity of rouge states getting a fake bargaining chip that you must accept or blow the lid of the conspiracy?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 09, 2010, 07:08:23 AM
I don't doubt your academic abilities or greater knowledge in seismic data interpretation.  I'm curious, did you actually
If there were no nuclear bomb detonations, then it follows that a nuclear bomb seismic event would not exist. Since there are in fact unique seismic signatures that coincide only with reported nuclear bomb detonations, a nuclear bomb must have detonated. Even if a country tries to hide nuclear bomb testing from the public, seismologists around the world are the first people to know that testing took place.
So, it's safe to say you haven't actually ever seen this evidence, you know it 'must exist.'

To Death:
If a government has these ulimate weapons, people will fear them.  The Cuban Missile Crisis was designed to keep the US and Russia scared of impending nuclear war.  While you're just thankful to be alive, you readily hand over personal liberty for 'security.'  See:  9/11
Why wouldn't the Soviets just debunk the fake bombs right after WWII?  Perhaps they felt it advantageous to collaborate.  The Soviet government was abusive and subversive.  If they could manipulate the population, they would.  Clearly, if they wanted a bigger piece of the pie (WWII spoils), they could easily use debunked nukes as a great bargaining chip.

Anyway, I'm still waiting on these seismic readings everyone keeps talking about.

I'll be as clear as day:
Yes, I have seen nuclear bomb seismic events. There you go! No interpretation necessary -- I HAVE SEEN THESE ANOMALIES! And I've already told you, you couldn't make heads or tails of them if you wanted. You might be able to find an article specifically detailing and simplifiying how these seismic events are different from others, but best of luck on that -- you're going to have to draw up a graph using the raw data yourself and compare various seismic happenings and travel times if you want it to be THAT obvious. But just seeing different sets of graphs won't be enough. You will also need a pretty solid working knowledge of plate tectonics to have any idea what the pretty lines actually mean. But here's a free lesson to make this endeavor easier for you:

Earthquakes don't happen everywhere on the globe, and for good reason. They very, very rarely happen on the surface of the earth. Tracking the seismic waves of earthquakes backwards always leads us to several, if not tens of kilometers below the surface(depending on the type of fault or plate boundary). Unless you're digging a pit for decades AND can somehow manufacture a drillbit that is able to survive for any length of time, you will never get anywhere close to where the hypocenter is. Nuclear bomb detonations simply cannot be simulated by any other type of phenomenon or human device.

Here is an article talking about radiation and nuclear seismicity.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/05/27/how-experts-learn-the-secrets-of-north-koreas-nuclear-bomb-test/
"The region has little natural seismic activity, and experts noted that the waves didn’t match patterns produced by earthquakes."
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: malashenko on April 09, 2010, 02:47:34 PM
Quote from: Mizzle
The Cuban Missile Crisis was designed to keep the US and Russia scared of impending nuclear war.  While you're just thankful to be alive, you readily hand over personal liberty for 'security.' 

...

Why wouldn't the Soviets just debunk the fake bombs right after WWII?  Perhaps they felt it advantageous to collaborate.  The Soviet government was abusive and subversive.  If they could manipulate the population, they would.  Clearly, if they wanted a bigger piece of the pie (WWII spoils), they could easily use debunked nukes as a great bargaining chip.

The capitalist leaders of Stalinist Russia were class allies and partners of the capitalist leaders of the west just like their Romanov predecessors.   

State Capitalism in Russia
By Ygal Cluckstein (Tony Cliff)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm

The west supplied the capitalist Soviet Union with its technology. Among other books, this is also described in

Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development.
By Antony Sutton
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:Western_Technology_&_Soviet_Economic_Development

The control of a small elite and secret group or secret society over both education and the flow of information pertaining to engineering in the United States is described in the classic expose of the engineering industry:

'America by Design'
By David Noble
http://www.amazon.com/America-Design-Technology-Corporate-Capitalism/dp/0195026187/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270804614&sr=1-3

Russia's entire space program was debunked back in the 1960's by Lloyd Malian in his book

'Russia's Space Hoax:  Documented Proof That the Soviet Space Program Has Been Faked'

Wow, so now not only are nuclear weapons fake, but so is the USSR's space program... You have to be one tin-hat wearing crazy ass conspiracy theorist to believe that. The USSR and US were not friendly at all, and besides, why does worldwide science and geopolitics back up the existence of nuclear weaponry? Is there any reason at all nuclear weapons CANT exist? You seem to be arguing that there's a possibility of them not existing, but you can't prove they don't or can't, and since you're questioning the status quo the burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 10, 2010, 02:09:02 AM

I'll be as clear as day:
Yes, I have seen nuclear bomb seismic events. There you go! No interpretation necessary -- I HAVE SEEN THESE ANOMALIES! And I've already told you, you couldn't make heads or tails of them if you wanted. You might be able to find an article specifically detailing and simplifiying how these seismic events are different from others, but best of luck on that -- you're going to have to draw up a graph using the raw data yourself and compare various seismic happenings and travel times if you want it to be THAT obvious. But just seeing different sets of graphs won't be enough. You will also need a pretty solid working knowledge of plate tectonics to have any idea what the pretty lines actually mean. But here's a free lesson to make this endeavor easier for you:

Earthquakes don't happen everywhere on the globe, and for good reason. They very, very rarely happen on the surface of the earth. Tracking the seismic waves of earthquakes backwards always leads us to several, if not tens of kilometers below the surface(depending on the type of fault or plate boundary). Unless you're digging a pit for decades AND can somehow manufacture a drillbit that is able to survive for any length of time, you will never get anywhere close to where the hypocenter is. Nuclear bomb detonations simply cannot be simulated by any other type of phenomenon or human device.

Here is an article talking about radiation and nuclear seismicity.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/05/27/how-experts-learn-the-secrets-of-north-koreas-nuclear-bomb-test/
"The region has little natural seismic activity, and experts noted that the waves didn’t match patterns produced by earthquakes."
So, the north korean nuke article you linked to was supposed to be less than 1/3 the amount of energy of the Hiroshima bomb?  Not believable.  60 years later, with all of the information on how the bomb is supposed to work, and they can't produce one?  This is on top of the fact that, the US in less than 5 years built the bombs and used them in combat.  Very, very unlikely.
Of course, like the article says, it's impossible to know how large of a seismic event explosion should render without knowing the local geographic composition of the earth that surrounds it.  Given the very shallow depth of underground nuclear testing, they should be very undetectable over great distances.
Additionally, the detectability of these events could be increased/decreased intentionally given the depth/structure of the earth in which the test were performed.
It's unlikely that the US and Russian governments would have chosen test sites detectable by seismic anomalies unless:
a)  They wanted people to know where their top secret weapons were being tested (not likely)
b)  The tests weren't really nuclear bombs, and were in fact explosions of much less magnitude in much more accommodating seismic environments (more likely).

To Death:
Fear leads to the necessity of 'security.'  The more a population needs 'security,' the more accepting of abusive governmental powers it will be.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Deceiver on April 10, 2010, 07:43:27 AM

I'll be as clear as day:
Yes, I have seen nuclear bomb seismic events. There you go! No interpretation necessary -- I HAVE SEEN THESE ANOMALIES! And I've already told you, you couldn't make heads or tails of them if you wanted. You might be able to find an article specifically detailing and simplifiying how these seismic events are different from others, but best of luck on that -- you're going to have to draw up a graph using the raw data yourself and compare various seismic happenings and travel times if you want it to be THAT obvious. But just seeing different sets of graphs won't be enough. You will also need a pretty solid working knowledge of plate tectonics to have any idea what the pretty lines actually mean. But here's a free lesson to make this endeavor easier for you:

Earthquakes don't happen everywhere on the globe, and for good reason. They very, very rarely happen on the surface of the earth. Tracking the seismic waves of earthquakes backwards always leads us to several, if not tens of kilometers below the surface(depending on the type of fault or plate boundary). Unless you're digging a pit for decades AND can somehow manufacture a drillbit that is able to survive for any length of time, you will never get anywhere close to where the hypocenter is. Nuclear bomb detonations simply cannot be simulated by any other type of phenomenon or human device.

Here is an article talking about radiation and nuclear seismicity.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/05/27/how-experts-learn-the-secrets-of-north-koreas-nuclear-bomb-test/
"The region has little natural seismic activity, and experts noted that the waves didn’t match patterns produced by earthquakes."
So, the north korean nuke article you linked to was supposed to be less than 1/3 the amount of energy of the Hiroshima bomb?  Not believable.  60 years later, with all of the information on how the bomb is supposed to work, and they can't produce one?  This is on top of the fact that, the US in less than 5 years built the bombs and used them in combat.  Very, very unlikely.
Of course, like the article says, it's impossible to know how large of a seismic event explosion should render without knowing the local geographic composition of the earth that surrounds it.  Given the very shallow depth of underground nuclear testing, they should be very undetectable over great distances.
Additionally, the detectability of these events could be increased/decreased intentionally given the depth/structure of the earth in which the test were performed.
It's unlikely that the US and Russian governments would have chosen test sites detectable by seismic anomalies unless:
a)  They wanted people to know where their top secret weapons were being tested (not likely)
b)  The tests weren't really nuclear bombs, and were in fact explosions of much less magnitude in much more accommodating seismic environments (more likely).

To Death:
Fear leads to the necessity of 'security.'  The more a population needs 'security,' the more accepting of abusive governmental powers it will be.

Since you clearly show zero understanding of seismics and basic geology, I won't belabor those points further. However, I will attempt to clarify this one last time. Earthquakes happen at depth. Bombs happen on the surface. Both produce seismic waves. By tracing it to the surface, we can tell that is was not an earthquake. Given the magnitude and duration of seismic activity, we can conclude with a great deal of certainty what the basic properties of the event were, whether it was an earthquake, a nuclear bomb, a firebomb raid, or just a really powerful missile.

You can't just go out and make a bomb even if you were handed a blueprint. The bomb was likely less powerful because their enrichment techniques aren't up to snuff. There is a good reason the vast majority of the world doesn't have nuclear technology

a) countries don't just handout bomb and manufacturing techniques, even to allies
b) it requires tons of research and tons of money, which most countries still don't have, Korea included.

Despite the fact that everyone knows the basic concept behind the wheel, some fortunate people have precision lasers at their disposal, others just have their two bare hands and a pile of rocks. Deceiver out -- I'm done with this thread.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 10, 2010, 08:32:58 AM
Again, it's impossible to know how big an explosion is without knowing the composition of the earth.
Their enrichment processes and capabilities should be far more advanced than what the US government did OVER 70 YEARS AGO FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER in a period of just a few years.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 17 November on April 11, 2010, 05:40:38 PM
Quote from: malashenko
Is there any reason at all nuclear weapons CANT exist? You seem to be arguing that there's a possibility of them not existing

First of all, these weapons are not nuclear because atoms do not exist.  The modern atomic myth (a twentieth century myth primarily manufactured by Lord Rutherford) was debunked by Dewey Larson in his book:

'The Case Against the Atom'
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm


It is also physically impossible for bombs to disintegrate entire cities.  This fact is evident in Major deSeversky's February 1946 Readers' Digest article when he states that the bomb which struck Hiroshima in August 1945 could completely destroy only a small area if detonated close to the ground.  Although the bomb would affect a larger area if detonated from a higher altitude, the destruction caused to each unit of ground would be less extensive from a higher altitude.  Thus, THERE IS A PHYSICAL LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF DESTRUCTION WHICH A SINGLE BOMB CAN ACCOMPLISH - reguardless of the lies of news men and psudo-scientists who never came within 5000 miles of Japan.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: parsec on April 11, 2010, 07:05:27 PM
The modern atomic myth (a twentieth century myth primarily manufactured by Lord Rutherford) was debunked by Dewey Larson in his book:

'The Case Against the Atom'
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
tl;dr
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on April 11, 2010, 07:08:40 PM
Although the bomb would affect a larger area if detonated from a higher altitude, the destruction caused to each unit of ground would be less extensive from a higher altitude. Thus, THERE IS A PHYSICAL LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF DESTRUCTION WHICH A SINGLE BOMB CAN ACCOMPLISH - reguardless of the lies of news men and psudo-scientists who never came within 5000 miles of Japan.
Unless, of course, you had a bomb with a bigger blast radius. Then it would be capable of the same amount of destruction, in a bigger area.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mykael on April 11, 2010, 08:43:20 PM
It is also physically impossible for bombs to disintegrate entire cities.  This fact is evident in Major deSeversky's February 1946 Readers' Digest article when he states that the bomb which struck Hiroshima in August 1945 could completely destroy only a small area if detonated close to the ground.  Although the bomb would affect a larger area if detonated from a higher altitude, the destruction caused to each unit of ground would be less extensive from a higher altitude.  Thus, THERE IS A PHYSICAL LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF DESTRUCTION WHICH A SINGLE BOMB CAN ACCOMPLISH - reguardless of the lies of news men and psudo-scientists who never came within 5000 miles of Japan.
(http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/tsar-bomba-mushroom-cloud.jpg)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: EireEngineer on April 11, 2010, 10:03:23 PM
Quote from: malashenko
Is there any reason at all nuclear weapons CANT exist? You seem to be arguing that there's a possibility of them not existing

First of all, these weapons are not nuclear because atoms do not exist.  The modern atomic myth (a twentieth century myth primarily manufactured by Lord Rutherford) was debunked by Dewey Larson in his book:

'The Case Against the Atom'
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm


It is also physically impossible for bombs to disintegrate entire cities.  This fact is evident in Major deSeversky's February 1946 Readers' Digest article when he states that the bomb which struck Hiroshima in August 1945 could completely destroy only a small area if detonated close to the ground.  Although the bomb would affect a larger area if detonated from a higher altitude, the destruction caused to each unit of ground would be less extensive from a higher altitude.  Thus, THERE IS A PHYSICAL LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF DESTRUCTION WHICH A SINGLE BOMB CAN ACCOMPLISH - reguardless of the lies of news men and psudo-scientists who never came within 5000 miles of Japan.
If atoms do not exist, kindly explain to me how the Field Effect Transistor and the Tunnel Diode can possibly operate, not to mention all of modern chemistry?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Lord Xenu on April 12, 2010, 12:22:24 AM
Don't you think that anyone saw the immense mushroom cloud?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mykael on April 12, 2010, 01:02:14 AM
If nuclear bombs do not exist, then how does one explain the 40-mile high hole that got punched in the atmosphere above the Russian archipelago of Novaya Zemlya on October 30, 1961? Or the mass shattering of windows in Sweden, also on that day?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 17 November on April 12, 2010, 01:18:21 AM
Quote from: EireEngineer
If atoms do not exist, kindly explain to me ... all of modern chemistry?

If you really want to understand chemistry (in depth) from the viewpoint that atoms do not exist (as in not at all), then I suggest you look into the work of Pierre Duhem. 
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Raist on April 13, 2010, 12:24:41 AM
Epicureanism begs to differ.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 13, 2010, 03:36:26 AM
If nuclear bombs do not exist, then how does one explain the 40-mile high hole that got punched in the atmosphere above the Russian archipelago of Novaya Zemlya on October 30, 1961? Or the mass shattering of windows in Sweden, also on that day?

I'd like to see some references to these claims.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mykael on April 13, 2010, 07:22:46 AM
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html)
http://www.vce.com/tsar.html (http://www.vce.com/tsar.html)
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Tsarbmb.jpg (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Tsarbmb.jpg)
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Novaya_Zemlya_testing_map.png&imgrefurl=http://wikimapia.org/53541/Sukhoy-Nos-nuclear-testing-site&usg=__xW6msww0luem6HiU4T5ZIeMRg4U=&h=1692&w=1152&sz=2327&hl=en&start=11&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=a4DjOofNzgzAeM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtsar%2Bbomba%2Bcrater%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1 (http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Novaya_Zemlya_testing_map.png&imgrefurl=http://wikimapia.org/53541/Sukhoy-Nos-nuclear-testing-site&usg=__xW6msww0luem6HiU4T5ZIeMRg4U=&h=1692&w=1152&sz=2327&hl=en&start=11&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=a4DjOofNzgzAeM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtsar%2Bbomba%2Bcrater%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: malashenko on April 13, 2010, 08:00:04 PM
Quote from: EireEngineer
If atoms do not exist, kindly explain to me ... all of modern chemistry?

If you really want to understand chemistry (in depth) from the viewpoint that atoms do not exist (as in not at all), then I suggest you look into the work of Pierre Duhem. 

Don't make a bland reference, give some facts. You are arguing against a commonly held viewpoint that the scientific community and experience back up, and if there were another model the effect must be the exact same, because atomic principles affect non-atomic applications quite heavily.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Lord Xenu on April 14, 2010, 12:18:30 AM
Don't you think that anyone saw the immense mushroom cloud?
Still, no-one's answered this.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 14, 2010, 01:54:39 AM
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html)
http://www.vce.com/tsar.html (http://www.vce.com/tsar.html)
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Tsarbmb.jpg (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Tsarbmb.jpg)

lmao.  Nothing in either one of those 'quick, I need a reference because I'm not really sure where I heard this crap' links said ANYTHING about a 40 mile high hole in the atmosphere, nor did it say anything about shattering windows in Sweden.

In fact, none of the 'observer accounts' were referenced directly.  No names were given for the 'observers.'
I'll say it again.  I'd like to see something back up your claims.  Don't post a link to the 'Tsar Bomb.'  I've already seen the videos and photos.
Give me something that directly says what you said.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 14, 2010, 01:59:38 AM
Don't you think that anyone saw the immense mushroom cloud?
Still, no-one's answered this.
Lots of bombs make mushroom clouds.  What's your point, anyway?

Here, I'll do some investigating for you.
Poof.  I'm now a reporter.
Poof.  I'm in Japan, and it's a decade after Hiroshima.
Poof.  I met some people, and they told me some stories.
Poof.  My account of others accounts are now all over the news with the government propaganda photos.

See how easy that is?  The only difference is, the reporter would actually have be be a reporter, or at the very least, the news paper company has to be 'playing ball' with the government.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Lord Xenu on April 14, 2010, 09:41:14 AM
Don't you think that anyone saw the immense mushroom cloud?
Still, no-one's answered this.
Lots of bombs make mushroom clouds.  What's your point, anyway?

Here, I'll do some investigating for you.
Poof.  I'm now a reporter.
Poof.  I'm in Japan, and it's a decade after Hiroshima.
Poof.  I met some people, and they told me some stories.
Poof.  My account of others accounts are now all over the news with the government propaganda photos.

See how easy that is?  The only difference is, the reporter would actually have be be a reporter, or at the very least, the news paper company has to be 'playing ball' with the government.

I'm sure there are lots of eyewitness accounts, of people who are around today. If the guy who came up with this conspiracy theory interviewed them and they all came to the conclusion that it looked like a carpet bomb, this theory would have some credibility. But he hasn't - he's just compiled a video of some trees being blown up, which apparently explains everything.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: malashenko on April 14, 2010, 05:52:21 PM
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html)
http://www.vce.com/tsar.html (http://www.vce.com/tsar.html)
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Tsarbmb.jpg (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Tsarbmb.jpg)

lmao.  Nothing in either one of those 'quick, I need a reference because I'm not really sure where I heard this crap' links said ANYTHING about a 40 mile high hole in the atmosphere, nor did it say anything about shattering windows in Sweden.

In fact, none of the 'observer accounts' were referenced directly.  No names were given for the 'observers.'
I'll say it again.  I'd like to see something back up your claims.  Don't post a link to the 'Tsar Bomb.'  I've already seen the videos and photos.
Give me something that directly says what you said.

There is no proof against nuclear weapons at all. There is an overwhelming amount of proof for their existence, which doesn't have to come from observations. Your standard of evidence is going to shift and change, and you'll no doubt claim "CONSPIRACY!" any time that we provide a direct observer's account(actually you've already done this).

Countless principles of both theoretical and technological development in the area of atomic technology, as well as the other sectors of thought and practice that are dependent on the existence of atomic weaponry clearly point to the fact that they are real. You have to be insane to simply deny the existence of nuclear weapons—especially since you have no proof against them.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Xerox on April 14, 2010, 08:31:15 PM
^^^ Here here! 
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 15, 2010, 02:19:00 AM

There is no proof against nuclear weapons at all. There is an overwhelming amount of proof for their existence, which doesn't have to come from observations. Your standard of evidence is going to shift and change, and you'll no doubt claim "CONSPIRACY!" any time that we provide a direct observer's account(actually you've already done this).

Countless principles of both theoretical and technological development in the area of atomic technology, as well as the other sectors of thought and practice that are dependent on the existence of atomic weaponry clearly point to the fact that they are real. You have to be insane to simply deny the existence of nuclear weapons—especially since you have no proof against them.
I'd agree with this statement if it wasn't selectively applied.
Your belief that nuclear bombs are real isn't founded in proof.  You probably saw a video or read about it during the 5-10 years old stage of your life, and it was written in permanently as fact.  The possibility that they are fake never entered your mind before you read or heard someone saying they might be fake.
Just like everyone else arguing for the bombs in this thread, you weren't aware of most of the 'facts' before you set out to prove your side of the argument.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Lord Xenu on April 15, 2010, 04:01:04 AM
^^^ Here here! 

Where? Where!?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: malashenko on April 15, 2010, 03:49:45 PM

There is no proof against nuclear weapons at all. There is an overwhelming amount of proof for their existence, which doesn't have to come from observations. Your standard of evidence is going to shift and change, and you'll no doubt claim "CONSPIRACY!" any time that we provide a direct observer's account(actually you've already done this).

Countless principles of both theoretical and technological development in the area of atomic technology, as well as the other sectors of thought and practice that are dependent on the existence of atomic weaponry clearly point to the fact that they are real. You have to be insane to simply deny the existence of nuclear weapons—especially since you have no proof against them.
I'd agree with this statement if it wasn't selectively applied.
Your belief that nuclear bombs are real isn't founded in proof.  You probably saw a video or read about it during the 5-10 years old stage of your life, and it was written in permanently as fact.  The possibility that they are fake never entered your mind before you read or heard someone saying they might be fake.
Just like everyone else arguing for the bombs in this thread, you weren't aware of most of the 'facts' before you set out to prove your side of the argument.

I accept the secondary sources as proof because those secondary sources have real impacts on my life. Nuclear power plants exist, this I know from personal experience. The fact that they run on nuclear fission I know from a secondary source, reports on stability/grid updates etc. that include references to nuclear fission. In any case this is acceptable proof because it's supported by real experiences from me and from any logical person's conclusions.

There's no evidence against nuclear weapons existing, so it makes no sense that I would suddenly deny their existence and start hunting down proof as I had no reason to believe they didn't. I have all the reasons in the world to believe they exist, and not one to believe they don't.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 17 November on April 16, 2010, 01:22:18 AM
Quote from: malashenko
Don't make a bland reference, give some facts.

No, I answered the question "explain all of modern chemistry" with an excellent and succinct reference.  If you or anyone wants to know the anti-atomic chemistry, then there are english translations of Duhem's works coming out and information to be found about him on the internet. 

"All of modern chemistry" is a whole lot to explain from either the pro-atomic or the anti-atomic side.  I checked out thick chemistry books of his from the library in French years ago before english translations began coming out, but I have read and seen enough about Duhem to know that   if anyone from either side of the controversy is so interested in scrutinizing such details, then they can find the arguments and (ancient) anti-atomic chemistry models in the writings of Pierre Duhem explained a lot better and more in depth than I could ever explain it.

Here are a couple of links:

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Duhem.html
http://www.amazon.com/Pierre-Maurice-Marie-Duhem/e/B001HCW1CA/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1271405514&sr=1-1

Quote from: malashenko
if there were another model the effect must be the exact same
"The central proposition of this famous book is that physical theories are conventions serving to economize scientific thought rather than descriptions or explanations of the way the world is made."
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/2667.html

'The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory'
By Pierre Duhem

http://books.google.com/books?id=5mVPK7QBdTkC&dq=the+aim+and+structure+of+physical+theory&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=ZxvIS-C5DIj-9ATerrzfCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Physical-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/069102524X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271401988&sr=1-1


Quote from: Raist
Epicureanism begs to differ.

Yes, of course he does, but Epicurus does not have a monopoly on the truth. 

The ancient Epicurus himself adopted the atomic theory of Democritus which is proof that he had faith in something that does not exist.  The same applies to Epicurus's own modern disciples like Karl Marx (which is in spite of all of Marx's astute economic and political analyses).

The so-called "scientific community" is an association of hypocritical religious charlatans not essentially different than the medieval scholastics.  The modern pseudo-scientists also trace their heritage THROUGH THE MEDIEVAL SCHOLASTIC CHARLATANS back to the ancient greek philosophers.

Quote from: malashenko
There is no proof against nuclear weapons at all.

So-called nuclear weaponry is a myth for fools maintained by a cult not essentially different than the pathetic underground cult depicted in planet of the apes. 

Malashenko's theme song:  'HAIL THE BOMB!'

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: 17 November on April 16, 2010, 01:50:26 AM
Quote from: malashenko
Nuclear power plants exist, this I know from personal experience. The fact that they run on nuclear fission I know from a secondary source, reports on stability/grid updates etc. that include references to nuclear fission.

Energy plants exist that are widely assumed to be "nuclear" powered.  No one (as far as I know) is denying that power comes from these plants (or from the reactors of so-called nuclear submarines, et cetera), but the secondary material you completely rely upon as an explanation of how this power is generated is provided exclusively by persons both educated and brainwashed by a closed system under the strict control of a secret society.  Engineering education is run in this fashion.  I am not arguing that the process does not provide power, but that the description of how that power is generated is radically falsified.

This is why I earlier mentioned David Noble's expose of the engineering industry

'America By Design:  Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism'
By David Noble
http://books.google.com/books?id=LBYlAV6VmpwC&dq=america+by+design+noble&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=GSHIS9zCFouG9ATYl6GdCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.amazon.com/America-Design-Technology-Corporate-Capitalism/dp/0195026187/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271406836&sr=8-10


From the Foreward:

"The second phase of industrial development ... began to unfold when the capitalist, having expropriated the worker's property, gradually expropriated his technical knowledge as well...

"the work process had to be split up into hundreds of separate operations performed by workers who no longer understood the relation of one operation to another...

"the engineering profession emerged from the workshop and the school, how the "school culture" wing of the profession succeeded in making academic credentials the prerequisite of admission, and how academically trained engineers replaced "rule-of-thumb" methods with esoteric knowledge over which they themselves had established a monopoly.  The professionalization of engineering and the establishment of engineering education as a recognized branch of higher learning forged a link between the corporation and the university that remains unbroken to this day."
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: dude55 on April 16, 2010, 12:06:21 PM
Mizzle you annoy me to no extent:

Witnesses: His co-workers should also exist seeing as he did. So you can tack on his co-workers including his boss from his biography as witnesses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi

Tomiko Morimoto:http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2005-08-05-voa38-67539217.html

The pain they felt isnt fake, the US used a new weapon that they didnt know what it would cause. And since then people have been afraid to use it again knowing its powers. Modern day global fear rests solely on one weapon that everyone regrets making even the so called conspirators that you say dont exist. Everyone fears them, not just the public. And not just the people that saw it.


Photos of the aftermath, that is very hard to recreate with multiple bombs seeing as there is one single crater taken by Japanese military:

 http://mhpbooks.com/mobylives/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/hiroshima.jpg
http://themodulator.org/archives/hiroshima-damage.jpg

Nuclear Shadows (I'm not sure if this is the actual name but no other explosion can do it, the heat and thermal radiation and  speed of the shockwave/explosion leaves fire shadows of the peoples bodies and objects on stone. )

http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/hiroshima-shadow-2.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NO3URmUG7s0/RzASNFbMSCI/AAAAAAAAAME/fu6SN8WbeKA/s320/HiroshimaConcreteShadow.jpg
(The shadow of the pillars on this bridge also leave areas where the heat DIDNT scorch the bridge. The reason this bridge is still standing is because the heat of the blast extends much farther then the simple shockwave that causes building damage.: http://www.gensuikin.org/panel/12-2.jpg

Hope this changes your mind..
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Mizzle on April 16, 2010, 01:12:38 PM
Mizzle you annoy me to no extent:

Witnesses: His co-workers should also exist seeing as he did. So you can tack on his co-workers including his boss from his biography as witnesses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi

Tomiko Morimoto:http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2005-08-05-voa38-67539217.html

The pain they felt isnt fake, the US used a new weapon that they didnt know what it would cause. And since then people have been afraid to use it again knowing its powers. Modern day global fear rests solely on one weapon that everyone regrets making even the so called conspirators that you say dont exist. Everyone fears them, not just the public. And not just the people that saw it.


Photos of the aftermath, that is very hard to recreate with multiple bombs seeing as there is one single crater taken by Japanese military:

 http://mhpbooks.com/mobylives/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/hiroshima.jpg
http://themodulator.org/archives/hiroshima-damage.jpg

Nuclear Shadows (I'm not sure if this is the actual name but no other explosion can do it, the heat and thermal radiation and  speed of the shockwave/explosion leaves fire shadows of the peoples bodies and objects on stone. )

http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/hiroshima-shadow-2.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NO3URmUG7s0/RzASNFbMSCI/AAAAAAAAAME/fu6SN8WbeKA/s320/HiroshimaConcreteShadow.jpg
(The shadow of the pillars on this bridge also leave areas where the heat DIDNT scorch the bridge. The reason this bridge is still standing is because the heat of the blast extends much farther then the simple shockwave that causes building damage.: http://www.gensuikin.org/panel/12-2.jpg

Hope this changes your mind..

First of all, that guy should have been exposed to enough radiation to be killed in the first blast.
Secondly, he should have been exposed to enough radiation to be killed in the second blast.
He lived to be 94 years old.  You cannot tell me there was a nuclear fall out, when the guy lived and worked in Nagasaki for all those radioactive years and never died, if there is such a thing as nuclear fall out.  His wife died at age 93, purportedly from radiation complications as well.  Seriously?  That flies directly in the face of what should have happened to him.  He was 3km away from the drop zone in both blasts.

Black rain?  I don't know anything about this, but why would a nuclear explosion cause it to rain black particles?  A more likely explanation for this is un-combusted petroleum (or other fuel) from a massive fuel-air bomb.  This whole area would be environmentally devastated due to contamination, a much more likely scenario.

The second account says 'red/orange flash' as opposed to the blinding white light that is typically associated with nuclear bombs.

The first two photos:
I don't see one single crater in either of those photos.  They just look like some black and white photos of an area that was possibly hit by a fire storm.

Last three photos:
Observe in the first two photos, the shadows are outlines of objects that would have been in the way of the heat/blast, which is counter intuitive.
The last photo outlines the more likely scenario, that since the railing is in between the ground and the blast, the scorched parts are outside of what would be the railing's 'shadow.'  Basically, photo 3 is the inverse of photos 1 and 2.


@Malashenko:
Right, you have no reason to believe they are fake, so you wouldn't go out and look for information to the contrary.  However, once you realize that the US government and the Russian government don't care one single bit about their populations (this is evident especially in Russia.  See:  Communism) and only care about exploiting the weak and remaining in power, then you'll start to question what you once believed as well.
Don't get mad at me though, if the government decides to march you into a prison camp for your 'protection.'  I'll be the one outside the fence saying 'I told you so.'
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Lazerblazter69 on April 17, 2010, 08:16:08 AM
NO and neither does North Korea.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: dude55 on April 27, 2010, 07:41:31 AM
Mizzle you annoy me to no extent:

Witnesses: His co-workers should also exist seeing as he did. So you can tack on his co-workers including his boss from his biography as witnesses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi

Tomiko Morimoto:http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2005-08-05-voa38-67539217.html

The pain they felt isnt fake, the US used a new weapon that they didnt know what it would cause. And since then people have been afraid to use it again knowing its powers. Modern day global fear rests solely on one weapon that everyone regrets making even the so called conspirators that you say dont exist. Everyone fears them, not just the public. And not just the people that saw it.


Photos of the aftermath, that is very hard to recreate with multiple bombs seeing as there is one single crater taken by Japanese military:

 http://mhpbooks.com/mobylives/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/hiroshima.jpg
http://themodulator.org/archives/hiroshima-damage.jpg

Nuclear Shadows (I'm not sure if this is the actual name but no other explosion can do it, the heat and thermal radiation and  speed of the shockwave/explosion leaves fire shadows of the peoples bodies and objects on stone. )

http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/hiroshima-shadow-2.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NO3URmUG7s0/RzASNFbMSCI/AAAAAAAAAME/fu6SN8WbeKA/s320/HiroshimaConcreteShadow.jpg
(The shadow of the pillars on this bridge also leave areas where the heat DIDNT scorch the bridge. The reason this bridge is still standing is because the heat of the blast extends much farther then the simple shockwave that causes building damage.: http://www.gensuikin.org/panel/12-2.jpg

Hope this changes your mind..

First of all, that guy should have been exposed to enough radiation to be killed in the first blast.
Secondly, he should have been exposed to enough radiation to be killed in the second blast.
He lived to be 94 years old.  You cannot tell me there was a nuclear fall out, when the guy lived and worked in Nagasaki for all those radioactive years and never died, if there is such a thing as nuclear fall out.  His wife died at age 93, purportedly from radiation complications as well.  Seriously?  That flies directly in the face of what should have happened to him.  He was 3km away from the drop zone in both blasts.

Black rain?  I don't know anything about this, but why would a nuclear explosion cause it to rain black particles?  A more likely explanation for this is un-combusted petroleum (or other fuel) from a massive fuel-air bomb.  This whole area would be environmentally devastated due to contamination, a much more likely scenario.

The second account says 'red/orange flash' as opposed to the blinding white light that is typically associated with nuclear bombs.

The first two photos:
I don't see one single crater in either of those photos.  They just look like some black and white photos of an area that was possibly hit by a fire storm.

Last three photos:
Observe in the first two photos, the shadows are outlines of objects that would have been in the way of the heat/blast, which is counter intuitive.
The last photo outlines the more likely scenario, that since the railing is in between the ground and the blast, the scorched parts are outside of what would be the railing's 'shadow.'  Basically, photo 3 is the inverse of photos 1 and 2.


@Malashenko:
Right, you have no reason to believe they are fake, so you wouldn't go out and look for information to the contrary.  However, once you realize that the US government and the Russian government don't care one single bit about their populations (this is evident especially in Russia.  See:  Communism) and only care about exploiting the weak and remaining in power, then you'll start to question what you once believed as well.
Don't get mad at me though, if the government decides to march you into a prison camp for your 'protection.'  I'll be the one outside the fence saying 'I told you so.'
Sorry for such a late response I forgot about this forum for awhile and my response. (Again, DOH.)

Firstly, he was exposed to radiation, but not ENOUGH to kill him. You can walk in radiated rain and still survive depending on your body and how healthy or unhealthy it is. He did die of radiation related happenings, Stomach Cancer and he also had other amounts of cancer in his body. People dont need to die immediately and suddenly because of radiation. Its different for everyone, if he didn't have radiation he may have lived to 100 years seeing how he has done WITH Radiation. Its a funny thing, and its real even if bombs aren't real, radiation is.

Black rain, a term used by survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to describe the nuclear fallout from the bombs, which initially occurred in the form of precipitation  Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rain

Also, the blinding white light didn't come in until modern bombs because we have evolved and fine tuned how we make our bombs. The reason there wasn't as much radiation as there is in modern bombs is because were making them deadlier. And the blinding white light is generally the initial flash that then fades to orange fiery like explosion, the initial flash is what causes the burn shadows.

Those photos were taken by the Japanese press and military, they even said it was the aftermath of the bomb. Unless the Japanese are involved too. Also, that doesnt look like a fire-bomb, none of those buildings are burnt,  there is no ash or char or burnt wood remains that I can see, just crumbled snapped and broken wood and frames of destroyed buildings. This is a good example as I dont see any ash:http://themodulator.org/archives/hiroshima-damage.jpg

Burnt wood generally leaves ash and char, I see none. And sadly I cant find a crater of it. I had found one many years ago but I cant for the life of me remember the search t  WARNING:Don't mistake some of the dirt on the ground wish ash, there is dirt in the background that may look like ask. Try looking near the buildings and not too far from them to avoid mixing dirt with ash.

Now I will explain what Nuclear Shadows are, (and they aren't even called nuclear shadows!) the initial intense heat wave and thermal heat and light from the explosion causes shadows of people burnt onto buildings, say they got knocked up against the building from the wave, they get burnt and their body catches fire and their outline is BURNT onto the building. Brutal, and horrible. (I figured out what they are! YAY! Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_burn )

Now, the bridge is from an fire wave of the explosion, the initial heat wave and thermal heat didn't cause anything onto that because the heat wave only burns the images of people or -CERTAIN- objects onto buildings. So the fire wave scorched the bridge causing said image that I linked. Causing the inverse you see. Also, photo one is the outline of a person knocked onto the stairs, his body isn't outlined because he probably got crunched up and knocked away.

------------------------------

I'm sorry but this will be my last post I make in the argument, you are obviously a very heavy conspiracy theorist and nothing I say will probably make you believe. You said you were just open minded but your post of:
Quote
Right, you have no reason to believe they are fake, so you wouldn't go out and look for information to the contrary.  However, once you realize that the US government and the Russian government don't care one single bit about their populations (this is evident especially in Russia.  See:  Communism) and only care about exploiting the weak and remaining in power, then you'll start to question what you once believed as well.
Don't get mad at me though, if the government decides to march you into a prison camp for your 'protection.'  I'll be the one outside the fence saying 'I told you so.'

That obviously shows your a firm believer that they are fake. And I dont like my government but I sure as hell know that they aren't communistic dictators ruling every inch of our life and putting us into prison camps. Nuclear Bombs are real, their deadly. And any non-insane non-terrorist soul is afraid of them, even our governments.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: hiroshima is real on January 22, 2011, 10:26:46 PM
if nuclear bombs are not real than how do u explain the bombing of Hiroshima??? and if nuclear bombs do not exist than does that mean that Einstein's theory of E equals MC squared is wrong? because they use that theory to make nukes...
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on January 22, 2011, 11:06:58 PM
This thread is dumb. The idea of the technology is not what makes nukes scary, its the damage they did, which was real.
I think conspiracy theory is a cool guy
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Vindictus on January 22, 2011, 11:39:37 PM
if nuclear bombs are not real than how do u explain the bombing of Hiroshima??? and if nuclear bombs do not exist than does that mean that Einstein's theory of E equals MC squared is wrong? because they use that theory to make nukes...

Before jumping into a thread you found on Google you should:

1. Check how old the thread is
2. Check the context
3. Not cover your answer in bright f***ing red
and
4. Attempt to sound reasonably intelligent/coherent
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Hazbollah on January 23, 2011, 01:30:52 PM
if nuclear bombs are not real than how do u explain the bombing of Hiroshima??? and if nuclear bombs do not exist than does that mean that Einstein's theory of E equals MC squared is wrong? because they use that theory to make nukes...
Brah, epic necro. there's a thread that amounts to the same thing on this or the second page. And they say Hiroshima was bombed heavily, just not nuked.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: doyh on January 23, 2011, 07:18:47 PM
If Hiroshima hadn't been nuked, it would have more damage. In an attempt to make it more realistic, we would have bombed it as bad as we did the entirely undeserving city of Dresden. Read Slaughter-House Five.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Hazbollah on January 24, 2011, 08:52:05 AM
If Hiroshima hadn't been nuked, it would have more damage. In an attempt to make it more realistic, we would have bombed it as bad as we did the entirely undeserving city of Dresden. Read Slaughter-House Five.
Dresden had no military industry, for sure. But it was full of retreating German troops falling back from Poland. So it was brutal, but not random.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on January 24, 2011, 09:22:58 AM
explain the radiation, and accounts thereof. This is almost as lame a denying the holocaust.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Alpha_Wave on February 17, 2011, 11:05:04 AM
explain the radiation, and accounts thereof. This is almost as lame a denying the holocaust.

Is it impossible to put hot material in a conventional bomb before setting it off? That's not a very telling argument aginst the theory.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Planeteclipse on February 27, 2011, 11:54:19 PM
Man some of the responces in this thread have really baffled me. Most of them were very old, But they seemed to be men posing as intellectuals, argueing for the sake of argueing.
 There were alot of very valid points made, then people denying the facts only to post later that they actually believe the facts.
Im going to school in the radiology field, and I've been learning and experiencing quite A lot on the subject.(which I'm sure is more then 90% of the gentlemen on here can say, sorry)
Honestly, I'm hoping that this thread is a spoof and the arguements are like i said, for the sake of it. Or people having theories(perfectly fine and normal), but with no background or truly relevent experience.
Well, this thread is going on several years old, It's probably near dead by now. So I'm hoping.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tausami on February 28, 2011, 12:01:07 PM
Man some of the responces in this thread have really baffled me. Most of them were very old, But they seemed to be men posing as intellectuals, argueing for the sake of argueing.
 There were alot of very valid points made, then people denying the facts only to post later that they actually believe the facts.
Im going to school in the radiology field, and I've been learning and experiencing quite A lot on the subject.(which I'm sure is more then 90% of the gentlemen on here can say, sorry)
Honestly, I'm hoping that this thread is a spoof and the arguements are like i said, for the sake of it. Or people having theories(perfectly fine and normal), but with no background or truly relevent experience.
Well, this thread is going on several years old, It's probably near dead by now. So I'm hoping.

Well, yeah. This is the Flat Earth Society. We argue about the shape of the Earth all day. What would you expect?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Beorn on February 28, 2011, 12:02:56 PM
Man some of the responces in this thread have really baffled me. Most of them were very old, But they seemed to be men posing as intellectuals, argueing for the sake of argueing.
 There were alot of very valid points made, then people denying the facts only to post later that they actually believe the facts.
Im going to school in the radiology field, and I've been learning and experiencing quite A lot on the subject.(which I'm sure is more then 90% of the gentlemen on here can say, sorry)
Honestly, I'm hoping that this thread is a spoof and the arguements are like i said, for the sake of it. Or people having theories(perfectly fine and normal), but with no background or truly relevent experience.
Well, this thread is going on several years old, It's probably near dead by now. So I'm hoping.

It was dead until you decided to make an account just to revive it be smug.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Planeteclipse on February 28, 2011, 10:05:30 PM
Man some of the responces in this thread have really baffled me. Most of them were very old, But they seemed to be men posing as intellectuals, argueing for the sake of argueing.
 There were alot of very valid points made, then people denying the facts only to post later that they actually believe the facts.
Im going to school in the radiology field, and I've been learning and experiencing quite A lot on the subject.(which I'm sure is more then 90% of the gentlemen on here can say, sorry)
Honestly, I'm hoping that this thread is a spoof and the arguements are like i said, for the sake of it. Or people having theories(perfectly fine and normal), but with no background or truly relevent experience.
Well, this thread is going on several years old, It's probably near dead by now. So I'm hoping.

It was dead until you decided to make an account just to revive it be smug.
Again people assuming things. I've been reading forums on here for awhile. That just so happened to be my first post. And I'm not the one who revived it duder 8) But thats true there's alot of argueing on here lol, as for the shape of the world..gimme a break! Everyone knows It's flat ::)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Tausami on March 01, 2011, 12:29:47 PM
Man some of the responces in this thread have really baffled me. Most of them were very old, But they seemed to be men posing as intellectuals, argueing for the sake of argueing.
 There were alot of very valid points made, then people denying the facts only to post later that they actually believe the facts.
Im going to school in the radiology field, and I've been learning and experiencing quite A lot on the subject.(which I'm sure is more then 90% of the gentlemen on here can say, sorry)
Honestly, I'm hoping that this thread is a spoof and the arguements are like i said, for the sake of it. Or people having theories(perfectly fine and normal), but with no background or truly relevent experience.
Well, this thread is going on several years old, It's probably near dead by now. So I'm hoping.

It was dead until you decided to make an account just to revive it be smug.
Again people assuming things. I've been reading forums on here for awhile. That just so happened to be my first post. And I'm not the one who revived it duder 8) But thats true there's alot of argueing on here lol, as for the shape of the world..gimme a break! Everyone knows It's flat ::)

I smell an alt.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: JoshuaZ on March 01, 2011, 09:29:35 PM
If nukes don't exist then a lot of things don't make much sense. One needs to not only not have nuclear bombs, and nuclear power plants, but also nuclear reactors that are used to generate radioactive isotopes used in medicine (although some of those come from particle accelerators, not all types can do so.) I also have no idea how one would then go about explaining the existence of the Oklo natural fission reactor. And it then isn't clear what happened at Chernobyl (yeah, the USSR decided to simulate a serious nuclear accident and evacuate a large area for now reason). And I'd have to wonder how the americium in smoke detectors is made. And that's just for starters.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Beorn on March 01, 2011, 09:50:47 PM
If nukes don't exist then a lot of things don't make much sense. One needs to not only not have nuclear bombs, and nuclear power plants, but also nuclear reactors that are used to generate radioactive isotopes used in medicine (although some of those come from particle accelerators, not all types can do so.) I also have no idea how one would then go about explaining the existence of the Oklo natural fission reactor. And it then isn't clear what happened at Chernobyl (yeah, the USSR decided to simulate a serious nuclear accident and evacuate a large area for now reason). And I'd have to wonder how the americium in smoke detectors is made. And that's just for starters.

None of the examples are nukes, why wouldn't they exist ???
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: JoshuaZ on March 01, 2011, 09:53:49 PM


None of the examples are nukes, why wouldn't they exist ???

All of them rely on the exact same laws of physics. If nukes aren't possible then those shouldn't be possible either. Or if they are possible, we'd have to have been massively lied to about how they work, and there would need to be even larger conspiracy theories involved (including the medical establishment, the power industry, the smoke detector makers, among many others.)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MouseWalker on January 06, 2016, 11:18:46 PM
As a 12 year old, I lived in Hawaii and was an eyewitness to Starfish Prime. As I recall, I was looking out the window and I saw the flash of the explosion it made shadows as sharp as from a flash camera but it was from above the tree that was in the back yard, and I turned to look out the bay windows to the street with tree in front yard too late to see there. I then ran out through the patio up the stairs to the pool area looked over the valley. Seeing that the streetlight were all dark and they were just beginning to flicker back on; no power was lost in the house, just that the street lights went out. That is how I remember it, and I can’t think of any way of reproducing that across the entire valley which was about a mile at its broadest. Nuclear bombs are real!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 24, 2019, 06:59:05 AM
Yes, the Starfish Prime nuclear explosion up in space caused a lot of damages at Hawaii, i.e. street lights went out according witnesses.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Jamie on May 24, 2019, 08:35:43 AM
Yes, nuclear bombs exist.

What a stupid discussion.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 24, 2019, 10:24:52 AM
Nuclear weapons do not switch off street lights. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on May 26, 2019, 08:22:50 AM
Nuclear weapons do not switch off street lights. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .

A Nuclear explosion releases a large amount of electromagnetic radiation which can interact with large electrical grid systems. Such as overhead power supply cables ext. This can do anything from nothing to completely destroying the electrical grid if its big enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse


Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 27, 2019, 03:01:41 AM
Nuclear weapons do not switch off street lights. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .

A Nuclear explosion releases a large amount of electromagnetic radiation which can interact with large electrical grid systems. Such as overhead power supply cables ext. This can do anything from nothing to completely destroying the electrical grid if its big enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse

It sounds like bad science. When Hiroshima, Japan, was destroyed 6 August 1945 there was no electromagnetic radiation (LOL) interacting with the airplanes participating in the terror attacks. They made photos and returned safely home. At the ground zero 99.9% of the observers were vaporized but 0.1% survived and could testify how terrible it was. After having switched on the light.
Ever heard of bad science? I explain at http://heiwaco.com .
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 27, 2019, 03:36:20 AM

When Hiroshima, Japan, was destroyed 6 August 1945 there was no electromagnetic radiation (LOL) interacting with the airplanes participating in the terror attacks.

I think it is awesome you have been able to fish the same school for four solid years.

I was on a long range boat one time and we got into a ferocious Dorado bite.
I caught a couple on a bare hook.
Two dudes got into an argument about the best lure to use on them.

The captain climbed down from the house and took a rod from one of them.
He was munching on an orange. Took a chunk of rind and pinned it on.
Threw it out 60 feet and reeled with a stutter retrieve. Bite, bam, swing and hook!
He handed the rod back and climbed back up to the house.

He didn't say a word.


Heiwa is absolutely owning all of you.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 27, 2019, 04:30:42 AM
(http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Hiroshima/images/Cloud.jpg)         (https://www.dropbox.com/s/oulsbbvgplvpttn/Mushroom%20Cloud%20Over%20NagasakiLieutenant%20by%20Charles%20Levy%201945.jpg?dl=1)         (https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQr1doGJO7MzHPvzOZip96YhwKq9K_aoZK3xlQABUD6_684W_soQdMNu7rVBQ)

And, Mr Bullwinkle, would you deny us the right to publicise Heiwa's fine site? Here's a link http://heiwaco.com/ (http://www.howtoarguewithanidiot.com), so there!

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 27, 2019, 05:03:22 AM
If you enjoy tickling his balls have at it.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 27, 2019, 05:34:34 AM

When Hiroshima, Japan, was destroyed 6 August 1945 there was no electromagnetic radiation (LOL) interacting with the airplanes participating in the terror attacks.

I think it is awesome you have been able to fish the same school for four solid years.

I was on a long range boat one time and we got into a ferocious Dorado bite.
I caught a couple on a bare hook.
Two dudes got into an argument about the best lure to use on them.

The captain climbed down from the house and took a rod from one of them.
He was munching on an orange. Took a chunk of rind and pinned it on.
Threw it out 60 feet and reeled with a stutter retrieve. Bite, bam, swing and hook!
He handed the rod back and climbed back up to the house.

He didn't say a word.


Heiwa is absolutely owning all of you.

Yes, this US B29 atomic bomber, after dropping the gadget 6 August 1945 on Hiroshima, should have dropped down to low level and taken a close look at what was left of the target and taken some photos. Pictures of clouds in the sky are nothing. I have been told there was some escort planes too, and they could also have taken a better look at the destruction. It is not everyday that you drop an atomic bomb on people and vaporize them in a FLASH. But there was no hurry! You could have returned the next day.
When US/UK bombed Dresden a night February 1945 they came back next morning to finish the job and even used low flying planes using automatic guns to slaughter Germans trying to escape on the roads. Churchill said that Dresden with its baroque cathedral was an important military target that had been overlooked since 1939. Freiberg i.Sa. 30 kms west with its arms industry making V2 equipment and airplane parts was left unharmed. My house there was never bombed at all I am happy to note. I sold it 2016.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 27, 2019, 05:46:24 AM
If you enjoy tickling his balls have at it.
But I do hope that you checked his site out ;).
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 28, 2019, 12:32:25 PM
Nuclear weapons do not switch off street lights. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .

A Nuclear explosion releases a large amount of electromagnetic radiation which can interact with large electrical grid systems. Such as overhead power supply cables ext. This can do anything from nothing to completely destroying the electrical grid if its big enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse

It sounds like bad science. When Hiroshima, Japan, was destroyed 6 August 1945 there was no electromagnetic radiation (LOL) interacting with the airplanes participating in the terror attacks.
That's because the bombs used were quite small compared to later bombs. 

They made photos and returned safely home.
Actually, they did have quite a rough ride when the shock wave caught up with them.

At the ground zero 99.9% of the observers were vaporized but 0.1% survived and could testify how terrible it was. After having switched on the light.
Ever heard of bad science?
Yes, your site is good source of bad science,
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 30, 2019, 09:05:25 PM

Yes, your site is good source of bad science,

Yes, I describe at my website several cases where various authorities/experts use really bad science (pseudoscience) to fool and scare the general public, e.g. nuclear weapons 1945, space travel 1960's, ships sinking all the time, 911 collapses (2001) and a nuclear power plant breakdown 2011. It is very easy! Just make most info secret for various security reasons and then you can invent anything. The public is always ignorant and believes anything.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on June 17, 2019, 09:17:48 AM
if nuclear bombs are not real than how do u explain the bombing of Hiroshima??? and if nuclear bombs do not exist than does that mean that Einstein's theory of E equals MC squared is wrong? because they use that theory to make nukes...
Hiroshima was bombed by 100's of US B29 napalm bombers August 1945. POTUS FDR had 1942 decided to build 1 000's of B29 bombers and train 10 000's of bomber pilots and they bombed everywhere 1942/5 but ... it didn't work. Towns went up in flames but the enemy people moved away. The war had to end on the ground like in Germany May 1945. But US/USSR could not invade and defeat Japan on the ground. So the fake US atomic bomb was used. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm Big biz today.
I assume you work for Hiroshima JTB.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: The Real Celine Dion on June 17, 2019, 09:28:33 AM
if nuclear bombs are not real than how do u explain the bombing of Hiroshima??? and if nuclear bombs do not exist than does that mean that Einstein's theory of E equals MC squared is wrong? because they use that theory to make nukes...
Hiroshima was bombed by 100's of US B29 napalm bombers August 1945. POTUS FDR had 1942 decided to build 1 000's of B29 bombers and train 10 000's of bomber pilots and they bombed everywhere 1942/5 but ... it didn't work. Towns went up in flames but the enemy people moved away. The war had to end on the ground like in Germany May 1945. But US/USSR could not invade and defeat Japan on the ground. So the fake US atomic bomb was used. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm Big biz today.
I assume you work for Hiroshima JTB.

Jesus Christ, you're not dead yet Anders?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on June 17, 2019, 07:42:28 PM
if nuclear bombs are not real than how do u explain the bombing of Hiroshima??? and if nuclear bombs do not exist than does that mean that Einstein's theory of E equals MC squared is wrong? because they use that theory to make nukes...
Hiroshima was bombed by 100's of US B29 napalm bombers August 1945. POTUS FDR had 1942 decided to build 1 000's of B29 bombers and train 10 000's of bomber pilots and they bombed everywhere 1942/5 but ... it didn't work. Towns went up in flames but the enemy people moved away. The war had to end on the ground like in Germany May 1945. But US/USSR could not invade and defeat Japan on the ground. So the fake US atomic bomb was used. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm Big biz today.
I assume you work for Hiroshima JTB.

Jesus Christ, you're not dead yet Anders?
No, he still posts the same old lies:
"Hiroshima was bombed by 100's of US B29 napalm bombers August 1945. POTUS FDR had 1942 decided to build 1 000's of B29 bombers and train 10 000's of bomber pilots and they bombed everywhere 1942/5 but ... it didn't work. Towns went up in flames but the enemy people moved away. The war had to end on the ground like in Germany May 1945. But US/USSR could not invade and defeat Japan on the ground. So the fake US atomic bomb was used. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm Big biz today.
I assume you work for Hiroshima JTB."

And Heiwa himself posts this!
Yes, the Starfish Prime nuclear explosion up in space caused a lot of damages at Hawaii, i.e. street lights went out according witnesses.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on June 17, 2019, 10:40:30 PM
if nuclear bombs are not real than how do u explain the bombing of Hiroshima??? and if nuclear bombs do not exist than does that mean that Einstein's theory of E equals MC squared is wrong? because they use that theory to make nukes...
Hiroshima was bombed by 100's of US B29 napalm bombers August 1945. POTUS FDR had 1942 decided to build 1 000's of B29 bombers and train 10 000's of bomber pilots and they bombed everywhere 1942/5 but ... it didn't work. Towns went up in flames but the enemy people moved away. The war had to end on the ground like in Germany May 1945. But US/USSR could not invade and defeat Japan on the ground. So the fake US atomic bomb was used. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm Big biz today.
I assume you work for Hiroshima JTB.

Jesus Christ, you're not dead yet Anders?
No, he still posts the same old lies:
"Hiroshima was bombed by 100's of US B29 napalm bombers August 1945. POTUS FDR had 1942 decided to build 1 000's of B29 bombers and train 10 000's of bomber pilots and they bombed everywhere 1942/5 but ... it didn't work. Towns went up in flames but the enemy people moved away. The war had to end on the ground like in Germany May 1945. But US/USSR could not invade and defeat Japan on the ground. So the fake US atomic bomb was used. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm Big biz today.
I assume you work for Hiroshima JTB."

And Heiwa himself posts this!
Yes, the Starfish Prime nuclear explosion up in space caused a lot of damages at Hawaii, i.e. street lights went out according witnesses.
According Wikipedia;
Quote
Starfish Prime was a July 9, 1962 high-altitude nuclear test conducted by the United States, a joint effort of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the Defense Atomic Support Agency. It was launched from Johnston Island, and was the largest nuclear test conducted in outer space and one of five conducted by the US in space.

A Thor rocket carrying a W49 thermonuclear warhead (designed by Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory) and a Mk. 2 reentry vehicle was launched from Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean, about 900 miles (1,450 km) west-southwest of Hawaii. The explosion took place at an altitude of 250 miles (400 km), above a point 19 miles (31 km) southwest of Johnston Island. It produced a yield equivalent to 1.4 megatonnes of TNT. The explosion was about 10° above the horizon as seen from Hawaii, at 11 PM Hawaii time.[1] ...  The Starfish Prime electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 898 miles (1,445 km) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights,[6] setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link.[7] The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands.[8]

But it is 100% fantasy. No evidence of anything. As usual.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: frenat on June 18, 2019, 05:15:31 AM
No evidence of anything. As usual.
You mean none you'd accept because you decided the conclusion before looking. Thanks for the humor!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on June 19, 2019, 03:55:31 AM
No evidence of anything. As usual.
You mean none you'd accept because you decided the conclusion before looking. Thanks for the humor!
No, everything about nuclear bombs is military top secret! Beware of terrorists and djihadists. To me it is a big joke.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: frenat on June 19, 2019, 07:05:18 AM
No evidence of anything. As usual.
You mean none you'd accept because you decided the conclusion before looking. Thanks for the humor!
No, everything about nuclear bombs is military top secret! Beware of terrorists and djihadists. To me it is a big joke.

More lies from Heiwa. Not everything about it is top secret and you have not seen ANYTHING secret or top secret. You never even bothered to interview ANY witness of any explosion even though there were thousands in Vegas in the 50's. AGAIN you've decided your conclusion before the evidence. The only joke here is you.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on June 19, 2019, 01:22:06 PM
No evidence of anything. As usual.
You mean none you'd accept because you decided the conclusion before looking. Thanks for the humor!
No, everything about nuclear bombs is military top secret! Beware of terrorists and djihadists. To me it is a big joke.

More lies from Heiwa. Not everything about it is top secret and you have not seen ANYTHING secret or top secret. You never even bothered to interview ANY witness of any explosion even though there were thousands in Vegas in the 50's. AGAIN you've decided your conclusion before the evidence. The only joke here is you.
No, I happened to work in Yokohama, Japan in the 70's with two persons born in the 30's at Hiroshima/Nagasaki. They survived and could tell me what happened. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: frenat on June 19, 2019, 01:31:50 PM
No evidence of anything. As usual.
You mean none you'd accept because you decided the conclusion before looking. Thanks for the humor!
No, everything about nuclear bombs is military top secret! Beware of terrorists and djihadists. To me it is a big joke.

More lies from Heiwa. Not everything about it is top secret and you have not seen ANYTHING secret or top secret. You never even bothered to interview ANY witness of any explosion even though there were thousands in Vegas in the 50's. AGAIN you've decided your conclusion before the evidence. The only joke here is you.
No, I happened to work in Yokohama, Japan in the 70's with two persons born in the 30's at Hiroshima/Nagasaki. They survived and could tell me what happened. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
I can't find anywhere on that shitshow of a page where you have eyewitness testimony for these two witnesses. and I feel dirty for contributing to your hit count which will only feed your ego. IF you have their testimonies then post them here. But I'm betting no matter what you have you still had the conclusion BEFORE gathering all the evidence. It is what you do.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on June 19, 2019, 02:37:09 PM
No evidence of anything. As usual.
You mean none you'd accept because you decided the conclusion before looking. Thanks for the humor!
No, everything about nuclear bombs is military top secret! Beware of terrorists and djihadists. To me it is a big joke.

More lies from Heiwa. Not everything about it is top secret and you have not seen ANYTHING secret or top secret. You never even bothered to interview ANY witness of any explosion even though there were thousands in Vegas in the 50's. AGAIN you've decided your conclusion before the evidence. The only joke here is you.
No, I happened to work in Yokohama, Japan in the 70's with two persons born in the 30's at Hiroshima/Nagasaki. They survived and could tell me what happened. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
I can't find anywhere on that shitshow of a page where you have eyewitness testimony for these two witnesses. and I feel dirty for contributing to your hit count which will only feed your ego. IF you have their testimonies then post them here. But I'm betting no matter what you have you still had the conclusion BEFORE gathering all the evidence. It is what you do.
Oh, he won't post any testimony because he probably thinks that they were either lying or forced to tell the story by the Japanese government.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: frenat on June 19, 2019, 03:30:38 PM
No evidence of anything. As usual.
You mean none you'd accept because you decided the conclusion before looking. Thanks for the humor!
No, everything about nuclear bombs is military top secret! Beware of terrorists and djihadists. To me it is a big joke.

More lies from Heiwa. Not everything about it is top secret and you have not seen ANYTHING secret or top secret. You never even bothered to interview ANY witness of any explosion even though there were thousands in Vegas in the 50's. AGAIN you've decided your conclusion before the evidence. The only joke here is you.
No, I happened to work in Yokohama, Japan in the 70's with two persons born in the 30's at Hiroshima/Nagasaki. They survived and could tell me what happened. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
I can't find anywhere on that shitshow of a page where you have eyewitness testimony for these two witnesses. and I feel dirty for contributing to your hit count which will only feed your ego. IF you have their testimonies then post them here. But I'm betting no matter what you have you still had the conclusion BEFORE gathering all the evidence. It is what you do.
Oh, he won't post any testimony because he probably thinks that they were either lying or forced to tell the story by the Japanese government.
I know. And as far as I can tell he doesn't have any testimony. I won't go back to his site. It is badly organized and reminiscent of a geocities page and the hit count (paltry as it is) just feeds his ego. If he can't present his evidence where he is trying to make his argument then that is his fail.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Bullwinkle on June 19, 2019, 04:02:45 PM
Who's winning?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: frenat on June 19, 2019, 06:52:51 PM
Who's winning?

who cares?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on June 19, 2019, 07:42:43 PM
No evidence of anything. As usual.
You mean none you'd accept because you decided the conclusion before looking. Thanks for the humor!
No, everything about nuclear bombs is military top secret! Beware of terrorists and djihadists. To me it is a big joke.

More lies from Heiwa. Not everything about it is top secret and you have not seen ANYTHING secret or top secret. You never even bothered to interview ANY witness of any explosion even though there were thousands in Vegas in the 50's. AGAIN you've decided your conclusion before the evidence. The only joke here is you.
No, I happened to work in Yokohama, Japan in the 70's with two persons born in the 30's at Hiroshima/Nagasaki. They survived and could tell me what happened. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
I can't find anywhere on that shitshow of a page where you have eyewitness testimony for these two witnesses. and I feel dirty for contributing to your hit count which will only feed your ego. IF you have their testimonies then post them here. But I'm betting no matter what you have you still had the conclusion BEFORE gathering all the evidence. It is what you do.
Oh, he won't post any testimony because he probably thinks that they were either lying or forced to tell the story by the Japanese government.
I know. And as far as I can tell he doesn't have any testimony. I won't go back to his site. It is badly organized and reminiscent of a geocities page and the hit count (paltry as it is) just feeds his ego. If he can't present his evidence where he is trying to make his argument then that is his fail.
As a matter of fact there are museums at Hiroshima, Nagasaki (Japan) and Albuquerque (NM/USA) full of information (propaganda) about atomic/nuclear bombs incl. witnesses that were around when the bombs exploded in a FLASH. The FLASH vaporized everything except the witnesses, some of which are still alive lying about it. I just describe the hoax at my website.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: frenat on June 20, 2019, 05:07:57 AM
No evidence of anything. As usual.
You mean none you'd accept because you decided the conclusion before looking. Thanks for the humor!
No, everything about nuclear bombs is military top secret! Beware of terrorists and djihadists. To me it is a big joke.

More lies from Heiwa. Not everything about it is top secret and you have not seen ANYTHING secret or top secret. You never even bothered to interview ANY witness of any explosion even though there were thousands in Vegas in the 50's. AGAIN you've decided your conclusion before the evidence. The only joke here is you.
No, I happened to work in Yokohama, Japan in the 70's with two persons born in the 30's at Hiroshima/Nagasaki. They survived and could tell me what happened. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
I can't find anywhere on that shitshow of a page where you have eyewitness testimony for these two witnesses. and I feel dirty for contributing to your hit count which will only feed your ego. IF you have their testimonies then post them here. But I'm betting no matter what you have you still had the conclusion BEFORE gathering all the evidence. It is what you do.
Oh, he won't post any testimony because he probably thinks that they were either lying or forced to tell the story by the Japanese government.
I know. And as far as I can tell he doesn't have any testimony. I won't go back to his site. It is badly organized and reminiscent of a geocities page and the hit count (paltry as it is) just feeds his ego. If he can't present his evidence where he is trying to make his argument then that is his fail.
As a matter of fact there are museums at Hiroshima, Nagasaki (Japan) and Albuquerque (NM/USA) full of information (propaganda) about atomic/nuclear bombs incl. witnesses that were around when the bombs exploded in a FLASH. The FLASH vaporized everything except the witnesses, some of which are still alive lying about it. I just describe the hoax at my website.
And still you can't copy the supposed testimony you have here. Thanks for proving my point. You ignored testimony and you didn't bother to look for the thousands of others. You had the conclusion before you started.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on June 20, 2019, 07:03:20 AM
As a matter of fact there are museums at Hiroshima, Nagasaki (Japan) and Albuquerque (NM/USA) full of information (propaganda) about atomic/nuclear bombs incl. witnesses that were around when the bombs exploded in a FLASH. The FLASH vaporized everything except the witnesses, some of which are still alive lying about it. I just describe the hoax at my website.
Anders, what would it take to finally convince you that nuclear bombs are not a hoax?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on June 21, 2019, 08:48:52 PM
As a matter of fact there are museums at Hiroshima, Nagasaki (Japan) and Albuquerque (NM/USA) full of information (propaganda) about atomic/nuclear bombs incl. witnesses that were around when the bombs exploded in a FLASH. The FLASH vaporized everything except the witnesses, some of which are still alive lying about it. I just describe the hoax at my website.
Anders, what would it take to finally convince you that nuclear bombs are not a hoax?
We have discussed it before. Just ignite a B61 atomic bomb on a barge in the Mediterranean Sea outside my office window. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . There is nothing like a live test with witnesses like me around. But I doubt I get the military secrets clearances.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on June 21, 2019, 10:22:08 PM
Just ignite a B61 atomic bomb on a barge in the Mediterranean Sea outside my office window.
Igniting an atomic bomb might spread a bit of radiation but not a nuclear detonation.
We might take you slightly more seriously if you described the process of initiating a bit realistically.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on June 22, 2019, 10:38:16 AM
Just ignite a B61 atomic bomb on a barge in the Mediterranean Sea outside my office window.
In the off chance that you're wrong and atomic bombs are real, do you have any idea how damage such an explosion would cause?  Why would you want to take such a foolish chance?

There is nothing like a live test with witnesses like me around. But I doubt I get the military secrets clearances.
Countless people have already witnessed dozens of atomic bomb explosions.  What would one more witness to one more explosion prove?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sceptimatic on June 23, 2019, 12:59:54 AM
Just ignite a B61 atomic bomb on a barge in the Mediterranean Sea outside my office window.
In the off chance that you're wrong and atomic bombs are real, do you have any idea how damage such an explosion would cause?  Why would you want to take such a foolish chance?

There is nothing like a live test with witnesses like me around. But I doubt I get the military secrets clearances.
Countless people have already witnessed dozens of atomic bomb explosions.  What would one more witness to one more explosion prove?
You have no more proof of them working than anyone else does of them not working.

Your reliance is on stories and grainy video or CGI filming of supposed nuclear detonations....etc.
Can you use that as your proof?....No you can't but you can certainly claim your own high ground if it suits your way of thinking.

I've seen many films of Jesus and I could argue that there's churches and miracles happening, etc, etc, etc. Does that make it all real to those who've never physically seen anything that proves a reality or even felt a presence of a god in their lives?

The thing is, do you walk into church and call the vicar/priest, a liar? Do you walk in and tell the vicar or priest that they're wrong?
Do you walk in because you're part of some service to a family member, whether it's a wedding or funeral or christening, etc...and accept god is a reality just because the rest do?

There's nothing wrong with anyone believing in anything they feel is their truth and reality but if there's no real physical proof and only a reliance on stories of old and word of mouth by mass, plus buildings for those masses, it cannot be proclaimed as that person's truth to a person who does not accept that as a truth without real proof that becomes clear enough to cast away doubt.

This is where I'm at and I see far too much that tells me a different story to the one we are basically bullied into accepting.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on June 23, 2019, 01:28:43 AM
Just ignite a B61 atomic bomb on a barge in the Mediterranean Sea outside my office window.
In the off chance that you're wrong and atomic bombs are real, do you have any idea how damage such an explosion would cause?  Why would you want to take such a foolish chance?

There is nothing like a live test with witnesses like me around. But I doubt I get the military secrets clearances.
Countless people have already witnessed dozens of atomic bomb explosions.  What would one more witness to one more explosion prove?

I am not wrong. I have studied nuclear arms close up since many years, e.g. at nuclear bomb museums at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Japan and Albuquerque, NM, USA. They are just full of propaganda garbage.
Yes, countless people say they have witnessed atomic bomb explosions but ... they are all paid liars. Just listen to the Japanese that say they witnessed the FLASHES 1945 wiping out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They survived while the towns were vaporized? How lucky they were.
So why does Japan play along in this hoax since 1945? Easy. Every Japanese is trained from birth to obey parents, family and authorities - without thinking. They don't give a damn and if they do, they will have problems.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: turtles on June 23, 2019, 09:11:36 AM
Just ignite a B61 atomic bomb on a barge in the Mediterranean Sea outside my office window.
In the off chance that you're wrong and atomic bombs are real, do you have any idea how damage such an explosion would cause?  Why would you want to take such a foolish chance?

There is nothing like a live test with witnesses like me around. But I doubt I get the military secrets clearances.
Countless people have already witnessed dozens of atomic bomb explosions.  What would one more witness to one more explosion prove?

I am not wrong.

Ah, the certainty of a conspiracy theorist who has no evidence.


Quote
I have studied nuclear arms close up since many years, e.g. at nuclear bomb museums at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Japan and Albuquerque, NM, USA. They are just full of propaganda garbage.

How did you determine it's garbage?

Quote
Yes, countless people say they have witnessed atomic bomb explosions but ... they are all paid liars.

ALL of them? They successfully paid off everyone in Las Vegas? And not one of those gamblers every let the secret out? Haha, that's a funny level of delusion.

Quote
Just listen to the Japanese that say they witnessed the FLASHES 1945 wiping out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They survived while the towns were vaporized? How lucky they were.

Indeed, very lucky. Bit like the residents of Dresden or Tokyo in WW2. Are you saying they are liars too? If not why not?

Quote
So why does Japan play along in this hoax since 1945? Easy. Every Japanese is trained from birth to obey parents, family and authorities - without thinking. They don't give a damn and if they do, they will have problems.

Sounds more like it's just convenient for your conspiracy theories of you believe that.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on June 23, 2019, 09:53:09 AM


Quote
Just listen to the Japanese that say they witnessed the FLASHES 1945 wiping out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They survived while the towns were vaporized? How lucky they were.

Indeed, very lucky. Bit like the residents of Dresden or Tokyo in WW2. Are you saying they are liars too? If not why not?

Quote
So why does Japan play along in this hoax since 1945? Easy. Every Japanese is trained from birth to obey parents, family and authorities - without thinking. They don't give a damn and if they do, they will have problems.

Sounds more like it's just convenient for your conspiracy theories of you believe that.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima

Thanks for the New Yorker link. Just propaganda to scare! The article is about six survivors living less than a mile from ground zero, where all houses were destroyed, but they survived unscathed and could tell their strange stories. 

A friend of mine witnessed the Dresden bombing February 1945 from Freiberg i.Sa. 30 kms away. Dresden was burning. And I have later visited Dresden. No doubt it was bombed. But USA/UK didn't bomb Freiberg i.Sa. and my house there. In Freiberg NaziGermany/Hitler built air plane and V2 rocket parts until April 1945. Those were the days. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com .
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on June 23, 2019, 11:43:48 AM
I am not wrong.
Famous last words.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on June 24, 2019, 10:56:04 PM
I am not wrong.
Famous last words.
Thanks! As I always say - only twerps believe in nuclear bombs, human space travel, 911 top down global collapses and similar fantasies of US presidents.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on June 25, 2019, 01:27:56 PM
I am not wrong.
Famous last words.
Thanks! As I always say - only twerps believe in nuclear bombs, human space travel, 911 top down global collapses and similar fantasies of US presidents.
And only fools think that they're never wrong.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: The Real Celine Dion on June 27, 2019, 02:53:06 PM
I saw we take Heiwa, obtain a nuclear device, take him out in the middle of the desert, and tell him to prove who's right we'll remote detonate it and we'll see if he gets vaporized or not.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on June 27, 2019, 03:11:26 PM
I saw we take Heiwa, obtain a nuclear device, take him out in the middle of the desert, and tell him to prove who's right we'll remote detonate it and we'll see if he gets vaporized or not.
And tell him to  ??? ignite ??? the blue touch paper and run, real fast! Because he seems to think that you start a nuclear detonation by "igniting" something.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: frenat on June 27, 2019, 03:13:11 PM
I saw we take Heiwa, obtain a nuclear device, take him out in the middle of the desert, and tell him to prove who's right we'll remote detonate it and we'll see if he gets vaporized or not.

Nah, then he'd just come back as a senile old ghost that denies how he died and still can't do research.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: The Real Celine Dion on June 27, 2019, 03:25:38 PM
I saw we take Heiwa, obtain a nuclear device, take him out in the middle of the desert, and tell him to prove who's right we'll remote detonate it and we'll see if he gets vaporized or not.

Nah, then he'd just come back as a senile old ghost that denies how he died and still can't do research.

Like an uncool version of Obi-wan Kenobi?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: frenat on June 27, 2019, 04:07:29 PM
I saw we take Heiwa, obtain a nuclear device, take him out in the middle of the desert, and tell him to prove who's right we'll remote detonate it and we'll see if he gets vaporized or not.

Nah, then he'd just come back as a senile old ghost that denies how he died and still can't do research.

Like an uncool version of Obi-wan Kenobi?
Exactly.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on June 27, 2019, 07:50:33 PM
I saw we take Heiwa, obtain a nuclear device, take him out in the middle of the desert, and tell him to prove who's right we'll remote detonate it and we'll see if he gets vaporized or not.
And tell him to  ??? ignite ??? the blue touch paper and run, real fast! Because he seems to think that you start a nuclear detonation by "igniting" something.
Atomic bombs are ignited by compressing two pieces of metal with a neutron in between to double density to become a critical mass that becomes a FLASH and a mushroom cloud. Many Japanese living at Ground Zero in Hiroshima have witnessed it. Everyone died or was vaporized except them, because they were lucky. Imagine that.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on June 27, 2019, 09:29:51 PM
I saw we take Heiwa, obtain a nuclear device, take him out in the middle of the desert, and tell him to prove who's right we'll remote detonate it and we'll see if he gets vaporized or not.
And tell him to  ??? ignite ??? the blue touch paper and run, real fast! Because he seems to think that you start a nuclear detonation by "igniting" something.
Atomic bombs are ignited by compressing two pieces of metal with an electron in between to double density to become a critical mass that becomes a FLASH and a mushroom cloud. Many Japanese living at Ground Zero in Hiroshima have witnessed it. Everyone died or was vaporized except them, because they were lucky. Imagine that.
No they're not! Do you do stand up comedy or just on-line one-liners?
What a joke to think that "an electron in between" would make the slightest difference! 
And you're the joke, Heiwa, to even suggest that sort of trash!

Here's some light viewing for you,
Scott Manley: Going Nuclear - The Science Of Nuclear Weapons:

Part 1 - Just a Theory
       
Part 2 - Chain Reactions


Part 3 - Plutonium Implosion
       
Part 4 - The Incredible Shrinking Warhead

I'll omit hydrogen bombs as you might try to build one at home and we can't have that!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on June 28, 2019, 12:56:05 AM
I saw we take Heiwa, obtain a nuclear device, take him out in the middle of the desert, and tell him to prove who's right we'll remote detonate it and we'll see if he gets vaporized or not.
And tell him to  ??? ignite ??? the blue touch paper and run, real fast! Because he seems to think that you start a nuclear detonation by "igniting" something.
Atomic bombs are ignited by compressing two pieces of metal with an electron in between to double density to become a critical mass that becomes a FLASH and a mushroom cloud. Many Japanese living at Ground Zero in Hiroshima have witnessed it. Everyone died or was vaporized except them, because they were lucky. Imagine that.
No they're not! Do you do stand up comedy or just on-line one-liners?
What a joke to think that "an electron in between" would make the slightest difference! 
And you're the joke, Heiwa, to even suggest that sort of trash!

Here's some light viewing for you,
Scott Manley: Going Nuclear - The Science Of Nuclear Weapons:

Part 1 - Just a Theory
       
Part 2 - Chain Reactions


Part 3 - Plutonium Implosion
       
Part 4 - The Incredible Shrinking Warhead

I'll omit hydrogen bombs as you might try to build one at home and we can't have that!
The objective of the Manhattan project was to secretly build an atomic bomb to vaporize Japanese towns full of civilians in wars. It started 1942 and was run by the US Army. All was top secret BUT communist spies managed to steal all the information about the explosive, military fission. In the end the project was a fiasco so it was decided to fake an explosion using propaganda and fake news. Military explosive FLASH fission was born summer 1945. One problem remains summer 2019 - how to ignite it? I describe the fiasco and the bad science at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . This Scott Manley masturbating about nuclear weapons science is a disgrace.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on June 28, 2019, 01:00:56 AM
I saw we take Heiwa, obtain a nuclear device, take him out in the middle of the desert, and tell him to prove who's right we'll remote detonate it and we'll see if he gets vaporized or not.
And tell him to  ??? ignite ??? the blue touch paper and run, real fast! Because he seems to think that you start a nuclear detonation by "igniting" something.
Atomic bombs are ignited by compressing two pieces of metal with an electron in between to double density to become a critical mass that becomes a FLASH and a mushroom cloud. Many Japanese living at Ground Zero in Hiroshima have witnessed it. Everyone died or was vaporized except them, because they were lucky. Imagine that.
No they're not! Do you do stand up comedy or just on-line one-liners?
What a joke to think that "an electron in between" would make the slightest difference! 
And you're the joke, Heiwa, to even suggest that sort of trash!

Here's some light viewing for you,
Scott Manley: Going Nuclear - The Science Of Nuclear Weapons:

Part 1 - Just a Theory
       
Part 2 - Chain Reactions


Part 3 - Plutonium Implosion
       
Part 4 - The Incredible Shrinking Warhead

I'll omit hydrogen bombs as you might try to build one at home and we can't have that!
<< Repeated garbage ignored >>
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on June 28, 2019, 09:43:51 AM
Atomic bombs are ignited...
How can you be an engineer and not understand the difference between ignition and detonation?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: The Real Celine Dion on June 28, 2019, 02:28:48 PM
Atomic bombs are ignited...
How can you be an engineer and not understand the difference between ignition and detonation?

Doesn't one involve pressing a button?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on June 28, 2019, 04:24:16 PM
Atomic bombs are ignited...
How can you be an engineer and not understand the difference between ignition and detonation?

Doesn't one involve pressing a button?
Not necessarily.  But one often involves lighting a match.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: The Real Celine Dion on June 29, 2019, 07:52:50 AM
Atomic bombs are ignited...
How can you be an engineer and not understand the difference between ignition and detonation?

Doesn't one involve pressing a button?
Not necessarily.  But one often involves lighting a match.

But Heiwa is so full of hot gas lighting a match wouldn't be a very good idea for him.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on June 29, 2019, 03:53:37 PM
Atomic bombs are ignited...
How can you be an engineer and not understand the difference between ignition and detonation?

Doesn't one involve pressing a button?
Not necessarily.  But one often involves lighting a match.

But Heiwa is so full of hot gas lighting a match wouldn't be a very good idea for him.
It might be fun to watch a "natural gas" powered rocket head for space - but Heiwa doesn't believe that safe reentry is possible. Tough, win some lose some.
Up he goes and where he lands, nobody knows!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on July 04, 2019, 01:26:42 PM
As far as I am concerned I cannot drop and ignite a nuclear weapon anywhere. And so can nobody else. incl. presidents of all sorts of countries. I think it is a great show - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on July 05, 2019, 06:43:57 PM
As far as I am concerned I cannot drop and ignite a nuclear weapon anywhere.
As far as I am concerned, that is for a very good reason.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on July 05, 2019, 07:23:45 PM
As far as I am concerned I cannot drop and ignite a nuclear weapon anywhere.
Of course you can't because:
Quote from: Heiwa
And so can nobody else. incl. presidents of all sorts of countries.
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU can't do something proves nothing!

There are numerous people the know infinitely more than you about nuclear weapons - that's not hard as you seem to know nothing.

But there are enough of Nuclear Physicists and Nuclear Engineers around that do know how build nuclear weapons and
too many presidents with the authority to deploy nuclear weapons that it's all too possible!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on July 06, 2019, 12:04:52 PM
As far as I am concerned I cannot drop and ignite a nuclear weapon anywhere.
Of course you can't because:
  • You don't have any nuclear weapons to drop and
  • nuclear weapons are not "ignited" but are detonated.
    I know it's not the same but I assume that you have exploded gelignite, dynamite, TNT or plastic explosive. Did you "ignite" that?

Quote from: Heiwa
And so can nobody else. incl. presidents of all sorts of countries.
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU can't do something proves nothing!

There are numerous people the know infinitely more than you about nuclear weapons - that's not hard as you seem to know nothing.

But there are enough of Nuclear Physicists and Nuclear Engineers around that do know how build nuclear weapons and
too many presidents with the authority to deploy nuclear weapons that it's all too possible!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
Only criminal 'survivors' have testified that both towns were vaporized by sudden FLASHES killing 100 000's of innocent civilians. Only war mongering idiots support these lies today. Incl. D. Trump and his staff.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2019, 12:12:15 PM
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on July 07, 2019, 02:24:32 AM
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945
I have been there! No evidence of any US nuclear attacks to kill women/children apart from two museums full of garbage. What about you? Why do you love nuclear weapons killing civilians?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on July 07, 2019, 02:42:09 AM
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU can't do something proves nothing!

There are numerous people the know infinitely more than you about nuclear weapons - that's not hard as you seem to know nothing.

But there are enough of Nuclear Physicists and Nuclear Engineers around that do know how build nuclear weapons and
too many presidents with the authority to deploy nuclear weapons that it's all too possible!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945,
Agreed, so far!

Quote from: Heiwa
but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs.
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU say something proves nothing!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on July 07, 2019, 05:00:04 AM
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU can't do something proves nothing!

There are numerous people the know infinitely more than you about nuclear weapons - that's not hard as you seem to know nothing.

But there are enough of Nuclear Physicists and Nuclear Engineers around that do know how build nuclear weapons and
too many presidents with the authority to deploy nuclear weapons that it's all too possible!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945,
Agreed, so far!

Quote from: Heiwa
but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs.
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU say something proves nothing!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 07, 2019, 05:09:20 AM
So where you there when the bombs were detonated?

Let me answer that for you.  You weren't.  You were there decades after the city was rebuilt.  You act like nuclear weapons create permanent damage to buildings and things can't be rebuilt.  Did you expect them to leave the city as rubble and destroyed buildings?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on July 07, 2019, 05:52:01 PM
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU say something proves nothing!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
Atomic bombs do work, unfortunately!
Quote
Atomic Heritage Foundation: Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/survivors-hiroshima-and-nagasaki)

Kimura Yoshihiro, in third grade at the time, saw the bomb fall from the plane. “Five or six seconds later, everything turned yellow. It was like I’d looked right at the sun. Then there was a big sound a second or two later and everything went dark”. Those at the epicenter of the blast were vaporized instantly. Others suffered horrific burns or were crushed by falling buildings. Hundreds threw themselves into the nearby river to escape the fires that burned throughout the city. As Doctor Michihiko Hachiya recalled, “Hiroshima was no longer a city, but a burnt-over prairie”. Sadako Kurihara also expressed the aftermath in her poem “Ruins”:

Hiroshima: nothing, nothing-

old and young burned to death,

city blown away,

socket without eyeball.

White bones scattered over reddish rubble;

above, sun burning down:

city of ruins, still as death.

One bomb fell from the plane - NOT many planes dropping thousands of bombs. Get that through your sick thick skull, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman.

Carpet bombing with napalm does not cause "flash burns" and "flash shadows" like this!

Flash burns and shadows at Hiroshima, nine months later (silent, color, HD) by RestrictedData

Carpet bombing with napalm does not cause "flash burns" like this!
(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2468912217300457-gr3.jpg)
Fig. 3. The effects of VLL (visual light with long wavelength). (a) The design of her clothes was printed on her shoulder because of the heat. This means that visual light is absorbed in pigments for colored clothes. (b) Even superficial burns formed enormous keloids (Cited from Ref. [10], Permission by Elsevier, License No.: 4183510653941).
From: Nuclear flash burns: A review and consideration Teruichi Harada (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468912217300457)

Now run off and try to hoodwink someone else.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on July 08, 2019, 12:15:20 AM
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU say something proves nothing!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
Atomic bombs do work, unfortunately!
Quote
Atomic Heritage Foundation: Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/survivors-hiroshima-and-nagasaki)

Kimura Yoshihiro, in third grade at the time, saw the bomb fall from the plane. “Five or six seconds later, everything turned yellow. It was like I’d looked right at the sun. Then there was a big sound a second or two later and everything went dark”. Those at the epicenter of the blast were vaporized instantly. Others suffered horrific burns or were crushed by falling buildings. Hundreds threw themselves into the nearby river to escape the fires that burned throughout the city. As Doctor Michihiko Hachiya recalled, “Hiroshima was no longer a city, but a burnt-over prairie”. Sadako Kurihara also expressed the aftermath in her poem “Ruins”:

Hiroshima: nothing, nothing-

old and young burned to death,

city blown away,

socket without eyeball.

White bones scattered over reddish rubble;

above, sun burning down:

city of ruins, still as death.

One bomb fell from the plane - NOT many planes dropping thousands of bombs. Get that through your sick thick skull, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman.

Carpet bombing with napalm does not cause "flash burns" and "flash shadows" like this!

Flash burns and shadows at Hiroshima, nine months later (silent, color, HD) by RestrictedData

Carpet bombing with napalm does not cause "flash burns" like this!
(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2468912217300457-gr3.jpg)
Fig. 3. The effects of VLL (visual light with long wavelength). (a) The design of her clothes was printed on her shoulder because of the heat. This means that visual light is absorbed in pigments for colored clothes. (b) Even superficial burns formed enormous keloids (Cited from Ref. [10], Permission by Elsevier, License No.: 4183510653941).
From: Nuclear flash burns: A review and consideration Teruichi Harada (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468912217300457)

Now run off and try to hoodwink someone else.
No - FLASH shadows and FLASH burns back in 1945 were Fake News then ... and today.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Round and Proud on July 10, 2019, 06:31:10 AM
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU say something proves nothing!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
Atomic bombs do work, unfortunately!
Quote
Atomic Heritage Foundation: Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/survivors-hiroshima-and-nagasaki)

Kimura Yoshihiro, in third grade at the time, saw the bomb fall from the plane. “Five or six seconds later, everything turned yellow. It was like I’d looked right at the sun. Then there was a big sound a second or two later and everything went dark”. Those at the epicenter of the blast were vaporized instantly. Others suffered horrific burns or were crushed by falling buildings. Hundreds threw themselves into the nearby river to escape the fires that burned throughout the city. As Doctor Michihiko Hachiya recalled, “Hiroshima was no longer a city, but a burnt-over prairie”. Sadako Kurihara also expressed the aftermath in her poem “Ruins”:

Hiroshima: nothing, nothing-

old and young burned to death,

city blown away,

socket without eyeball.

White bones scattered over reddish rubble;

above, sun burning down:

city of ruins, still as death.

One bomb fell from the plane - NOT many planes dropping thousands of bombs. Get that through your sick thick skull, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman.

Carpet bombing with napalm does not cause "flash burns" and "flash shadows" like this!

Flash burns and shadows at Hiroshima, nine months later (silent, color, HD) by RestrictedData

Carpet bombing with napalm does not cause "flash burns" like this!
(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2468912217300457-gr3.jpg)
Fig. 3. The effects of VLL (visual light with long wavelength). (a) The design of her clothes was printed on her shoulder because of the heat. This means that visual light is absorbed in pigments for colored clothes. (b) Even superficial burns formed enormous keloids (Cited from Ref. [10], Permission by Elsevier, License No.: 4183510653941).
From: Nuclear flash burns: A review and consideration Teruichi Harada (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468912217300457)

Now run off and try to hoodwink someone else.

Give it up. He is sure he knows because facing the truth is not something he can do. I spent 7 years working on nuclear weapons security. One doesn't create mountains of regulations for fake news or put people in jail for violating those fake regulations. 
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on July 10, 2019, 09:39:35 AM
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU say something proves nothing!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
Atomic bombs do work, unfortunately!
Quote
Atomic Heritage Foundation: Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/survivors-hiroshima-and-nagasaki)

Kimura Yoshihiro, in third grade at the time, saw the bomb fall from the plane. “Five or six seconds later, everything turned yellow. It was like I’d looked right at the sun. Then there was a big sound a second or two later and everything went dark”. Those at the epicenter of the blast were vaporized instantly. Others suffered horrific burns or were crushed by falling buildings. Hundreds threw themselves into the nearby river to escape the fires that burned throughout the city. As Doctor Michihiko Hachiya recalled, “Hiroshima was no longer a city, but a burnt-over prairie”. Sadako Kurihara also expressed the aftermath in her poem “Ruins”:

Hiroshima: nothing, nothing-

old and young burned to death,

city blown away,

socket without eyeball.

White bones scattered over reddish rubble;

above, sun burning down:

city of ruins, still as death.

One bomb fell from the plane - NOT many planes dropping thousands of bombs. Get that through your sick thick skull, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman.

Carpet bombing with napalm does not cause "flash burns" and "flash shadows" like this!

Flash burns and shadows at Hiroshima, nine months later (silent, color, HD) by RestrictedData

Carpet bombing with napalm does not cause "flash burns" like this!
(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2468912217300457-gr3.jpg)
Fig. 3. The effects of VLL (visual light with long wavelength). (a) The design of her clothes was printed on her shoulder because of the heat. This means that visual light is absorbed in pigments for colored clothes. (b) Even superficial burns formed enormous keloids (Cited from Ref. [10], Permission by Elsevier, License No.: 4183510653941).
From: Nuclear flash burns: A review and consideration Teruichi Harada (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468912217300457)

Now run off and try to hoodwink someone else.

Give it up. He is sure he knows because facing the truth is not something he can do. I spent 7 years working on nuclear weapons security. One doesn't create mountains of regulations for fake news or put people in jail for violating those fake regulations.
LOL
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Round and Proud on July 16, 2019, 02:28:36 PM
As far as I am concerned I cannot drop and ignite a nuclear weapon anywhere.
Of course you can't because:
  • You don't have any nuclear weapons to drop and
  • nuclear weapons are not "ignited" but are detonated.
    I know it's not the same but I assume that you have exploded gelignite, dynamite, TNT or plastic explosive. Did you "ignite" that?

Quote from: Heiwa
And so can nobody else. incl. presidents of all sorts of countries.
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU can't do something proves nothing!

There are numerous people the know infinitely more than you about nuclear weapons - that's not hard as you seem to know nothing.

But there are enough of Nuclear Physicists and Nuclear Engineers around that do know how build nuclear weapons and
too many presidents with the authority to deploy nuclear weapons that it's all too possible!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
Only criminal 'survivors' have testified that both towns were vaporized by sudden FLASHES killing 100 000's of innocent civilians. Only war mongering idiots support these lies today. Incl. D. Trump and his staff.

There were more than 200 atmospheric nuclear bomb tests conducted between 1945 and 1958 by the US and witnessed by more than 400,000 US Service members taking part in those tests. There is an untold number of people that witnessed them from a distance of about 100 miles. Clase closed.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on July 16, 2019, 09:35:31 PM
As far as I am concerned I cannot drop and ignite a nuclear weapon anywhere.
Of course you can't because:
  • You don't have any nuclear weapons to drop and
  • nuclear weapons are not "ignited" but are detonated.
    I know it's not the same but I assume that you have exploded gelignite, dynamite, TNT or plastic explosive. Did you "ignite" that?

Quote from: Heiwa
And so can nobody else. incl. presidents of all sorts of countries.
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU can't do something proves nothing!

There are numerous people the know infinitely more than you about nuclear weapons - that's not hard as you seem to know nothing.

But there are enough of Nuclear Physicists and Nuclear Engineers around that do know how build nuclear weapons and
too many presidents with the authority to deploy nuclear weapons that it's all too possible!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
Only criminal 'survivors' have testified that both towns were vaporized by sudden FLASHES killing 100 000's of innocent civilians. Only war mongering idiots support these lies today. Incl. D. Trump and his staff.

There were more than 200 atmospheric nuclear bomb tests conducted between 1945 and 1958 by the US and witnessed by more than 400,000 US Service members taking part in those tests. There is an untold number of people that witnessed them from a distance of about 100 miles. Clase closed.
No, there were 200 fake nuclear tests witnessed/done by 400 Hollywood actors/staff that then started faking the fake US space program ending in the great Apollo 11 show 50 years ago. Rotten cases still open ...
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Round and Proud on July 17, 2019, 03:28:37 AM
I suspected for a long time, but, now I know. You are suffering from a TBI.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on July 17, 2019, 07:09:17 AM
As far as I am concerned I cannot drop and ignite a nuclear weapon anywhere.
Of course you can't because:
  • You don't have any nuclear weapons to drop and
  • nuclear weapons are not "ignited" but are detonated.
    I know it's not the same but I assume that you have exploded gelignite, dynamite, TNT or plastic explosive. Did you "ignite" that?

Quote from: Heiwa
And so can nobody else. incl. presidents of all sorts of countries.
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU can't do something proves nothing!

There are numerous people the know infinitely more than you about nuclear weapons - that's not hard as you seem to know nothing.

But there are enough of Nuclear Physicists and Nuclear Engineers around that do know how build nuclear weapons and
too many presidents with the authority to deploy nuclear weapons that it's all too possible!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
Only criminal 'survivors' have testified that both towns were vaporized by sudden FLASHES killing 100 000's of innocent civilians. Only war mongering idiots support these lies today. Incl. D. Trump and his staff.

There were more than 200 atmospheric nuclear bomb tests conducted between 1945 and 1958 by the US and witnessed by more than 400,000 US Service members taking part in those tests. There is an untold number of people that witnessed them from a distance of about 100 miles. Clase closed.
No, there were 200 fake nuclear tests witnessed/done by 400 Hollywood actors/staff that then started faking the fake US space program ending in the great Apollo 11 show 50 years ago. Rotten cases still open ...
Did they fake dying from cancer because of the radioactive fallout too?
https://www.revealnews.org/article/us-veterans-in-secretive-nuclear-tests-still-fighting-for-recognition/
https://qz.com/1163140/us-nuclear-tests-killed-american-civilians-on-a-scale-comparable-to-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/fallout-pdf
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/atomic-bomb-did-the-atom_b_797822
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on July 17, 2019, 10:54:50 AM
As far as I am concerned I cannot drop and ignite a nuclear weapon anywhere.
Of course you can't because:
  • You don't have any nuclear weapons to drop and
  • nuclear weapons are not "ignited" but are detonated.
    I know it's not the same but I assume that you have exploded gelignite, dynamite, TNT or plastic explosive. Did you "ignite" that?

Quote from: Heiwa
And so can nobody else. incl. presidents of all sorts of countries.
Sorry, Mr Pretends-to-be-All-Knowing Anders Björkman, but just because YOU can't do something proves nothing!

There are numerous people the know infinitely more than you about nuclear weapons - that's not hard as you seem to know nothing.

But there are enough of Nuclear Physicists and Nuclear Engineers around that do know how build nuclear weapons and
too many presidents with the authority to deploy nuclear weapons that it's all too possible!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
Only criminal 'survivors' have testified that both towns were vaporized by sudden FLASHES killing 100 000's of innocent civilians. Only war mongering idiots support these lies today. Incl. D. Trump and his staff.

There were more than 200 atmospheric nuclear bomb tests conducted between 1945 and 1958 by the US and witnessed by more than 400,000 US Service members taking part in those tests. There is an untold number of people that witnessed them from a distance of about 100 miles. Clase closed.
No, there were 200 fake nuclear tests witnessed/done by 400 Hollywood actors/staff that then started faking the fake US space program ending in the great Apollo 11 show 50 years ago. Rotten cases still open ...
Did they fake dying from cancer because of the radioactive fallout too?
https://www.revealnews.org/article/us-veterans-in-secretive-nuclear-tests-still-fighting-for-recognition/
https://qz.com/1163140/us-nuclear-tests-killed-american-civilians-on-a-scale-comparable-to-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/fallout-pdf
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/atomic-bomb-did-the-atom_b_797822
Thanks for asking. As no atomic bombs vaporized Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 nobody there died of radiation or radioactive fallout. Fake News media published military propaganda to the contrary.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MicroBeta on July 17, 2019, 06:32:31 PM
I suspected for a long time, but, now I know. You are suffering from a TBI.
Actually, Anders did say he was severely brain damaged as a child but cured himself.

Yes, I have heard about OJ Simpson. But he is not the topic here.

Re me I am a nice, rich, good looking, intelligent, warm, social person. Of course I got brain damaged, when I was small - navy, sea mines, taught to kill people - but I cured myself.  http://heiwaco.com/vk12.htm .
You cured yourself of brain damage?

Yes! And I explain how at http://heiwaco.com/vk12.htm .

It took plenty time because I was very badly brain damaged up until, say 1988. Then it took another 15 years to heel myself.

I think I am fairly well cured today. But it took a lot of time.

He also claims to have a 200+ IQ and he considered going into physics...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of 40-ish years later. 

With my high IQ 200 I had to decide what to do 1964. Physics? I asked a Nobel Prize winner physics 1923 friend, MS, about it. He didn't recommend it! Most jobs you could get as a PhD was high school physics teacher - badly paid. Research? Very little serious research done and there was severe competition. And a lot of faked-up research was available! Atomic bomb explosive fission, bla, bla, bla! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm ! And astrophysical space trips bla, bla, bla. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm ! All nonsense. You become a member of a sect where you lie under the command of some high priest.
So MS recommended me to study mechanical sciences which I did. Naval architecture, marine engineering, structural analysis, etc! Better paid and with real problems to solve.
I have of course met nuclear physicists and asked them about explosive fission and how it works. I never got a real answer. Military secrets, Russian spies, yes, so no answers.
I have also met astrophysicists and asked them how you navigate in space among the Black Holes, etc. No real answers there, too.

If someone is truly "very badly brain damaged", they would never be accepted into the military, never get a masters in marine engineering, and could never start and run a business.  His claims are delusional.  So your TBI theory may not be far off.

BTW, a 200 IQ would make Anders one of the smartest people in history...just sayin'

Mike
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: boydster on July 17, 2019, 08:49:47 PM
Who's winning?

Heiwa. It's not even close.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: JerkFace on July 18, 2019, 02:34:12 AM
Who's winning?

Heiwa. It's not even close.

Watching people trying to talk logic to Heiwa is like watching Einstein explain general relativity to a monkey.  He justs grunts and throws shit.

Heiwa wins by default.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on July 18, 2019, 04:49:34 AM
I suspected for a long time, but, now I know. You are suffering from a TBI.
Actually, Anders did say he was severely brain damaged as a child but cured himself.

Yes, I have heard about OJ Simpson. But he is not the topic here.

Re me I am a nice, rich, good looking, intelligent, warm, social person. Of course I got brain damaged, when I was small - navy, sea mines, taught to kill people - but I cured myself.  http://heiwaco.com/vk12.htm .
You cured yourself of brain damage?

Yes! And I explain how at http://heiwaco.com/vk12.htm .

It took plenty time because I was very badly brain damaged up until, say 1988. Then it took another 15 years to heel myself.

I think I am fairly well cured today. But it took a lot of time.

He also claims to have a 200+ IQ and he considered going into physics...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of 40-ish years later. 

With my high IQ 200 I had to decide what to do 1964. Physics? I asked a Nobel Prize winner physics 1923 friend, MS, about it. He didn't recommend it! Most jobs you could get as a PhD was high school physics teacher - badly paid. Research? Very little serious research done and there was severe competition. And a lot of faked-up research was available! Atomic bomb explosive fission, bla, bla, bla! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm ! And astrophysical space trips bla, bla, bla. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm ! All nonsense. You become a member of a sect where you lie under the command of some high priest.
So MS recommended me to study mechanical sciences which I did. Naval architecture, marine engineering, structural analysis, etc! Better paid and with real problems to solve.
I have of course met nuclear physicists and asked them about explosive fission and how it works. I never got a real answer. Military secrets, Russian spies, yes, so no answers.
I have also met astrophysicists and asked them how you navigate in space among the Black Holes, etc. No real answers there, too.

If someone is truly "very badly brain damaged", they would never be accepted into the military, never get a masters in marine engineering, and could never start and run a business.  His claims are delusional.  So your TBI theory may not be far off.

BTW, a 200 IQ would make Anders one of the smartest people in history...just sayin'

Mike
Hello Mikrobrain. Thanks for your contribution. But a correction - 1964 being tested for (Swedish) military service I met a cute girl part of the test team. Using my charm and good looks I convinced her to tell me the correct answers of the IQ tests, they used. To be frank - it was not necessary. I got the post I wanted anyway in the Swedish Navy ... and it hates me ever since I explained how the Swedish Navy managed to remove the visor of M/S Estonia 1994 - after it sank. http://heiwaco.com .
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on July 18, 2019, 07:32:00 AM
Hello Mikrobrain. Thanks for your contribution. But a correction - 1964 being tested for (Swedish) military service I met a cute girl part of the test team. Using my charm and good looks I convinced her to tell me the correct answers of the IQ tests, they used.
Big deal.  In 1983 I aced the US military IQ test (it topped out at 155) without cheating.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 18, 2019, 08:18:22 PM
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/HhcQYmkhymMNi/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on July 19, 2019, 07:53:01 PM

What Happened to the Nuclear Test Sites? by Curious Droid
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on August 08, 2019, 08:14:02 PM
If Nuclear bombs existed than governments would be more worried. Detonate a nuclear bomb like device in the ionosphere and destroy the country below without destroying any buildings or giving anyone radiation poisoning. In fact, it would be far more efficient to detonate them in the ionosphere than on the ground because a smaller bomb could wreak  far more havoc for years. Even a bomb the size of the mythical Tsar Bomb would have a limited impact if detonated on the ground.

You also do not need to be precise or worry about it getting intercepted

If nuclear bombs existed, this style of warfare would be far more common place. The Russians or Chinese could wake up one day to find all their electronics fried and unable to work. Plunge them into the dark ages and cripple their economy/people without anyone knowing the truth

But given everyone is still able to turn the lights on I guess the bombs don't exist.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sokarul on August 08, 2019, 08:15:58 PM
If Nuclear bombs existed than governments would be more worried. Detonate a nuclear bomb like device in the ionosphere and destroy the country below without destroying any buildings or giving anyone radiation poisoning. In fact, it would be far more efficient to detonate them in the ionosphere than on the ground because a smaller bomb could wreak  far more havoc for years. Even a bomb the size of the mythical Tsar Bomb would have a limited impact if detonated on the ground.

You also do not need to be precise or worry about it getting intercepted

If nuclear bombs existed, this style of warfare would be far more common place. The Russians or Chinese could wake up one day to find all their electronics fried and unable to work. Plunge them into the dark ages and cripple their economy/people without anyone knowing the truth

But given everyone is still able to turn the lights on I guess the bombs don't exist.

Feel free to back up the claims made in this post.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on August 08, 2019, 08:30:54 PM
If Nuclear bombs existed than governments would be more worried. Detonate a nuclear bomb like device in the ionosphere and destroy the country below without destroying any buildings or giving anyone radiation poisoning. In fact, it would be far more efficient to detonate them in the ionosphere than on the ground because a smaller bomb could wreak  far more havoc for years. Even a bomb the size of the mythical Tsar Bomb would have a limited impact if detonated on the ground.

You also do not need to be precise or worry about it getting intercepted

If nuclear bombs existed, this style of warfare would be far more common place. The Russians or Chinese could wake up one day to find all their electronics fried and unable to work. Plunge them into the dark ages and cripple their economy/people without anyone knowing the truth

But given everyone is still able to turn the lights on I guess the bombs don't exist.

Feel free to back up the claims made in this post.

So you are suggesting that a nuclear bomb detonated in the ionosphere would not act like an EMP bomb in the slightest? OK.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sokarul on August 08, 2019, 08:45:56 PM
I made no claims of sort. I just want you to back up your claims.


And yes, the movie Goldeneye exists.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on August 08, 2019, 08:59:46 PM
I made no claims of sort. I just want you to back up your claims.


And yes, the movie Goldeneye exists.

I have not seen this Goldeneye movie. Yet you are a fool if you think a nuclear warhead detonation in the ionosphere would not fry electronics below.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse

This article is mostly right. You get the jist. If a bomb exploded on the ground 200 miles from you, life for you goes on for the most part. If exploded 200 miles above you, your entire country faces an existential crisis.


Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sokarul on August 08, 2019, 09:06:13 PM
Once again, I made no claims about anything.

Ok you provided evidence about a nuke and EMP.

Now do you have evidence that if nukes existed they would be used as an EMP?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on August 08, 2019, 09:27:47 PM
Once again, I made no claims about anything.

Ok you provided evidence about a nuke and EMP.

Now do you have evidence that if nukes existed they would be used as an EMP?

There is no reason any nuke couldn't be used as an EMP. In fact, it would be far more feasible to use them as an EMP.

For example, North Korea or Iran, could never hope to obtain enough bombs to completely destroy America, especially to a point America could not retaliate. Even if they did miraculously pull off a precision strike, they would need dozens of warheads striking at the same time to inflict enough damage. Then there is the resulting damage by essentially wiping out entire ecosystems and radiation/nuclear winter from so many war head detonations.

You could fire a nuclear warhead from a piece of shit container vessel and it does not even need to be accurate. It does not need to come back down and the risk it could be intercepted is almost nil. It is far easier and a lot more damage can be done to the populous with just one bomb. It also means that a retaliatory strike may be of a similar nature rather than a ground based detonation that incinerates much of the populous. Do you think North Korea would give as much of a shit to have its electronics fried? They can barely even maintain their electricity grid now anyway.

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sokarul on August 08, 2019, 10:33:27 PM
Ok terrific.

You made the claim Russia hasn’t nuked China or the US so nukes don’t exist.

This is what I want you to back up.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on August 08, 2019, 11:23:32 PM
Ok terrific.

You made the claim Russia hasn’t nuked China or the US so nukes don’t exist.

This is what I want you to back up.

Why would China nuke Russia? Why would Russia nuke the US? America nuking others seems a lot more plausible.... Yet here we are. China is continuing to rise as a global economic and military power house, Russia ever an antagonistic thorn in the side of America. North Korea and Iran, threating death and destruction to all of America. All could be crippled at the flick of a switch and you have Trump - an unhinged narcissistic psychopath who miraculously and uncharacteristically just lets them go about their business in trampling America and its interests?

There is no physical evidence that I could bring to the table on this online forum to 'back it up'. But I can bring logic to the table.

Logically, if nuclear bombs were in existence, we would have seen them used as EMPs. I can get why we wouldn't see them used on the ground - no one wants to put their name to that level of physical destruction but an EMP is silent and unseen.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on August 09, 2019, 03:31:06 PM
Ok terrific.

You made the claim Russia hasn’t nuked China or the US so nukes don’t exist.

This is what I want you to back up.

Why would China nuke Russia? Why would Russia nuke the US?
Why would they have nukes in the first place if not to use them?  Nukes serve best as a deterrent.  If you don't use your's on me, then I won't use mine on you.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Bullwinkle on August 09, 2019, 03:35:06 PM
Who's winning?

Heiwa. It's not even close.

 ;D
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on August 09, 2019, 06:41:21 PM
Who's winning?

Heiwa. It's not even close.


 ;D
Hm, I have just up-dated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm about the annual, August nuclear shows in Japan about who won ... WW2, etc. Was it the Shintoists or the Christians?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on April 23, 2020, 04:48:25 AM
What the fuck, nukes are real, idiots
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on April 23, 2020, 07:34:19 AM
What the fuck, nukes are real, idiots
We have been struggling to convince Heiwa that they are real for years.

But it seems your elegant words may finally have done it.

If only we could dance with language the way you do.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on April 23, 2020, 07:36:12 AM
What the fuck, nukes are real, idiots
We have been struggling to convince Heiwa that they are real for years.

But it seems your elegant words may finally have done it.

If only we could dance with language the way you do.

No, I was suprised there are people *this* dumb. Did heiwa mention "motionless clouds"? :D :)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on April 23, 2020, 07:47:37 AM
What the fuck, nukes are real, idiots
We have been struggling to convince Heiwa that they are real for years.

But it seems your elegant words may finally have done it.

If only we could dance with language the way you do.

No, I was suprised there are people *this* dumb. Did heiwa mention "motionless clouds"? :D :)

There are several threads dedicated to the stupid that is Heiwa.  Just to give you a history on Heiwa.  Heiwa is the name of a shit "Safety at Sea" company by one Anders Bjor.... (Fuck I'm not going to look up how he spells his name).  Anders became a crackpot conspiracy theorist around 1998 sometime after the US Coast Guard said that his shit tanker design was shit and wasn't allowed in US Coastal Waters.  He makes insane claims to include having millions of euros and panders his conspiracies on his website that he also uses for his "business".   He's also a fake Frenchman from Sweden.  (He is Swedish, lives in France, hates the Swedish government).

That's about it.  Also don't ever go to his actual webpage, use the web archive.  He thinks its popular because he has a visit counter that counts all the bots.  No reason to support his delusions.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MouseWalker on April 23, 2020, 02:04:44 PM
Nuclear weapons do not switch off street lights. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .

Yes it did,
I was an eye witness: The flash of Nuclear bomb turn the sensors of the street lights off then it went dark the street lights came back on.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on April 23, 2020, 03:38:50 PM
And people in Las Vegas saw nukes detonate. I was dialy life, but they are all shills, let me guess O0

And if you agree that they saw something, you need to agree there is entire infrastructure build in order to have THOUSANDS od tons of TNT brought to place


And Nevada Test site in approx 80 km off Las Vegas, so shoud curve of earth make bottoms of Mushrom clouds hidden? ;)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MouseWalker on April 28, 2020, 10:04:11 AM
Nuclear weapons do not switch off street lights. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .

Yes it did,
I was an eye witness: The flash of Nuclear bomb turn the sensors of the street lights off then it went dark the street lights came back on.
Heiwa can you explain what I saw?
The intensity of the light was bright, like a flash of a camera, that lasted about three seconds.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on April 28, 2020, 03:27:31 PM
And people in Las Vegas saw nukes detonate. I was dialy life, but they are all shills, let me guess O0

And if you agree that they saw something, you need to agree there is entire infrastructure build in order to have THOUSANDS od tons of TNT brought to place


And Nevada Test site in approx 80 km off Las Vegas, so shoud curve of earth make bottoms of Mushrom clouds hidden? ;)

Just detonate the bomb several hundred metres above the surface. Much wider area of destruction too (while less fallout on the surface)

I also think the explosion of TNT, even if you packed enough to yeild the same energy, would look different to an atomic bomb explosion
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Stash on April 28, 2020, 03:54:30 PM
And Nevada Test site in approx 80 km off Las Vegas, so shoud curve of earth make bottoms of Mushrom clouds hidden? ;)

At 40,000 feet (12 KM) high, from 65 miles (104 KM) away, no problem seeing the mushroom cloud.

(https://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/energy1113-lasvegascloud-06241957-600w_d5f4387be4.jpg)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on April 29, 2020, 11:11:03 AM
And people in Las Vegas saw nukes detonate. I was dialy life, but they are all shills, let me guess O0

And if you agree that they saw something, you need to agree there is entire infrastructure build in order to have THOUSANDS od tons of TNT brought to place


And Nevada Test site in approx 80 km off Las Vegas, so shoud curve of earth make bottoms of Mushrom clouds hidden? ;)

Just detonate the bomb several hundred metres above the surface. Much wider area of destruction too (while less fallout on the surface)

I also think the explosion of TNT, even if you packed enough to yeild the same energy, would look different to an atomic bomb explosion

Explosion is explosion, they look same. And most of bombs detonaded there were weak
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on April 29, 2020, 02:01:23 PM
And people in Las Vegas saw nukes detonate. I was dialy life, but they are all shills, let me guess O0

And if you agree that they saw something, you need to agree there is entire infrastructure build in order to have THOUSANDS od tons of TNT brought to place


And Nevada Test site in approx 80 km off Las Vegas, so shoud curve of earth make bottoms of Mushrom clouds hidden? ;)

Just detonate the bomb several hundred metres above the surface. Much wider area of destruction too (while less fallout on the surface)

I also think the explosion of TNT, even if you packed enough to yeild the same energy, would look different to an atomic bomb explosion

Explosion is explosion, they look same. And most of bombs detonaded there were weak

So a million tonnes of TNT will yield the same blinding flash and temperatures hotter than the core of the sun? Will it set trees on fire 40km away? At least no radioactive fallout is assured.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on April 29, 2020, 03:05:41 PM
And people in Las Vegas saw nukes detonate. I was dialy life, but they are all shills, let me guess O0

And if you agree that they saw something, you need to agree there is entire infrastructure build in order to have THOUSANDS od tons of TNT brought to place


And Nevada Test site in approx 80 km off Las Vegas, so shoud curve of earth make bottoms of Mushrom clouds hidden? ;)

Just detonate the bomb several hundred metres above the surface. Much wider area of destruction too (while less fallout on the surface)

I also think the explosion of TNT, even if you packed enough to yeild the same energy, would look different to an atomic bomb explosion

Explosion is explosion, they look same. And most of bombs detonaded there were weak

So a million tonnes of TNT will yield the same blinding flash and temperatures hotter than the core of the sun? Will it set trees on fire 40km away? At least no radioactive fallout is assured.

Well you can't definitively say no to those questions.

It's an unknown as no one has ever exploded even 22,000 tons of TNT at one instance, let alone 1,000,000 tons.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MouseWalker on April 29, 2020, 03:17:20 PM
And people in Las Vegas saw nukes detonate. I was dialy life, but they are all shills, let me guess O0

And if you agree that they saw something, you need to agree there is entire infrastructure build in order to have THOUSANDS od tons of TNT brought to place


And Nevada Test site in approx 80 km off Las Vegas, so shoud curve of earth make bottoms of Mushrom clouds hidden? ;)

Just detonate the bomb several hundred metres above the surface. Much wider area of destruction too (while less fallout on the surface)

I also think the explosion of TNT, even if you packed enough to yeild the same energy, would look different to an atomic bomb explosion

Explosion is explosion, they look same. And most of bombs detonaded there were weak

So a million tonnes of TNT will yield the same blinding flash and temperatures hotter than the core of the sun? Will it set trees on fire 40km away? At least no radioactive fallout is assured.

Well you can't definitively say no to those questions.

It's an unknown as no one has ever exploded even 22,000 tons of TNT at one instance, let alone 1,000,000 tons.
what is the volume of 1,000,000 tones of TNT?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on April 29, 2020, 04:27:58 PM
And people in Las Vegas saw nukes detonate. I was dialy life, but they are all shills, let me guess O0

And if you agree that they saw something, you need to agree there is entire infrastructure build in order to have THOUSANDS od tons of TNT brought to place


And Nevada Test site in approx 80 km off Las Vegas, so shoud curve of earth make bottoms of Mushrom clouds hidden? ;)

Just detonate the bomb several hundred metres above the surface. Much wider area of destruction too (while less fallout on the surface)

I also think the explosion of TNT, even if you packed enough to yeild the same energy, would look different to an atomic bomb explosion

Explosion is explosion, they look same. And most of bombs detonaded there were weak

So a million tonnes of TNT will yield the same blinding flash and temperatures hotter than the core of the sun? Will it set trees on fire 40km away? At least no radioactive fallout is assured.

Well you can't definitively say no to those questions.

It's an unknown as no one has ever exploded even 22,000 tons of TNT at one instance, let alone 1,000,000 tons.
what is the volume of 1,000,000 tones of TNT?

Well assuming I did the calculation right.

TNT has a density of 1.65g/cm3

1 ton = 907185g

1 ton of TNT has a volume of 549,809.0909 cm3

So 1,000,000 tons of TNT would have a volume of 549809090909 cm3  or 549809.090909m3
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on April 29, 2020, 07:02:47 PM
And people in Las Vegas saw nukes detonate. I was dialy life, but they are all shills, let me guess O0

And if you agree that they saw something, you need to agree there is entire infrastructure build in order to have THOUSANDS od tons of TNT brought to place

And Nevada Test site in approx 80 km off Las Vegas, so shoud curve of earth make bottoms of Mushrom clouds hidden? ;)

Just detonate the bomb several hundred metres above the surface. Much wider area of destruction too (while less fallout on the surface)

I also think the explosion of TNT, even if you packed enough to yeild the same energy, would look different to an atomic bomb explosion

Explosion is explosion, they look same. And most of bombs detonaded there were weak
I hope that you are being sarcastic, but:

No, they do not look quite the same and there are many other differences including the usual double initial fast flash of intense UV radiation, visible light and IR radiation, see Flash blindness (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects13.shtml). This can cause fires and severe flash burns to people far outside the blast zone.

Horrifying "Shadows" on a wall bleached by the intense initial flash!
I hope you like this sort of poetry :(.
Atomic bombs do work, unfortunately!
Quote
Atomic Heritage Foundation: Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/survivors-hiroshima-and-nagasaki)

Kimura Yoshihiro, in third grade at the time, saw the bomb fall from the plane. “Five or six seconds later, everything turned yellow. It was like I’d looked right at the sun. Then there was a big sound a second or two later and everything went dark”. Those at the epicenter of the blast were vaporized instantly. Others suffered horrific burns or were crushed by falling buildings. Hundreds threw themselves into the nearby river to escape the fires that burned throughout the city. As Doctor Michihiko Hachiya recalled, “Hiroshima was no longer a city, but a burnt-over prairie”. Sadako Kurihara also expressed the aftermath in her poem “Ruins”:

Hiroshima: nothing, nothing-

old and young burned to death,

city blown away,

socket without eyeball.

White bones scattered over reddish rubble;

above, sun burning down:

city of ruins, still as death.

One bomb fell from the plane - NOT many planes dropping thousands of bombs.

Flash burns and shadows at Hiroshima, nine months later (silent, color, HD) by RestrictedData

Carpet bombing with napalm does not cause "flash burns" like this!
(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2468912217300457-gr3.jpg)
Fig. 3. The effects of VLL (visual light with long wavelength). (a) The design of her clothes was printed on her shoulder because of the heat. This means that visual light is absorbed in pigments for colored clothes. (b) Even superficial burns formed enormous keloids (Cited from Ref. [10], Permission by Elsevier, License No.: 4183510653941).
From: Nuclear flash burns: A review and consideration Teruichi Harada (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468912217300457)


(http://nowiknow.com/wp-content/uploads/hiroshima_shadow_2.png)
You might read more in: The shadows of Hiroshima: Haunting imprints of people killed by the blast (https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/155844/the-shadows-of-hiroshima-haunting-imprints-of-people-killed-by-the-blast/)
IS Nuclear Power Exaggerated?

(https://media.definition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RPFH_BlindChildAtomicBomb.jpg)
This startling and heartbreaking image shows a young girl who survived
but was blinded by the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on Aug. 6, 1945.

Nuclear weapons are not exaggerated and their effects are devastating and sickening.
Conventional explosives don't do that nor this:
A mixture of tritium and deuterium, both from lithium deuteride and a lot of hitech stuff and ka-boom!


The World's Biggest Nuclear Bomb Ever Dropped - Tsar Bomba

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 01, 2020, 03:42:22 PM
So 1,000,000 tons of TNT would have a volume of 549809090909 cm3  or 549809.090909m3
Or, a cube roughly 82m (or 270') per side.

Or, a sphere roughly 101m (or 330') in diameter.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 02, 2020, 02:23:21 AM
As my friend Ivan Serov always said to me. It is very easy to fool the whole world, when you control media. Ivan was the best. And his pupil Vladimir Putin learnt it all from him. And there we are today. Question is ... will D. Trump learn?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on May 02, 2020, 04:02:12 AM
As my friend Ivan Serov always said to me. It is very easy to fool the whole world, when you control media. Ivan was the best. And his pupil Vladimir Putin learnt it all from him. And there we are today. Question is ... will D. Trump learn?

Why won't you admit nukes are real?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 02, 2020, 04:56:20 AM
As my friend Ivan Serov always said to me. It is very easy to fool the whole world, when you control media. Ivan was the best. And his pupil Vladimir Putin learnt it all from him. And there we are today. Question is ... will D. Trump learn?

Why won't you admit nukes are real?
Because I know Ivan Serov (and Stalin and Beria) invented the Soviet a-bomb 1945/9 to impress USA. It was just propaganda then ... and today. 
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on May 02, 2020, 05:36:19 AM
As my friend Ivan Serov always said to me. It is very easy to fool the whole world, when you control media. Ivan was the best. And his pupil Vladimir Putin learnt it all from him. And there we are today. Question is ... will D. Trump learn?

Why won't you admit nukes are real?
Because I know Ivan Serov (and Stalin and Beria) invented the Soviet a-bomb 1945/9 to impress USA. It was just propaganda then ... and today.

Why didn't USA "expoise" USSR?

Beacise they derected it with siezmology!

And are you flat earther?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 02, 2020, 07:43:19 AM
As my friend Ivan Serov always said to me. It is very easy to fool the whole world, when you control media. Ivan was the best. And his pupil Vladimir Putin learnt it all from him. And there we are today. Question is ... will D. Trump learn?

Why won't you admit nukes are real?
Because I know Ivan Serov (and Stalin and Beria) invented the Soviet a-bomb 1945/9 to impress USA. It was just propaganda then ... and today.

Why didn't USA "expoise" USSR?

Beacise they derected it with siezmology!

And are you flat earther?
No I am a fan of Ivan Serov. Ivan (b.1905) was of course a real, Russian gangster all his life killing people right and left BUT he was good at creating propaganda to please his bosses. His masterpiece was the communist nuclear bomb 1949 until today! Ivan died 1990. Ivan created the Wismut AG in Saxony, Germany. It was a company doing nothing but it needed some actors to create an illusion. Peace! Friede! Apartments were built and ... one complex even had tennis courts!!! The Saxons loved sport.
Ivan's friends at the CIA were also very happy for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 03, 2020, 04:40:53 AM
Why didn't USA "expose" USSR?

Because they detected it with seismology!

And are you flat earther?
No I am a fan of Ivan Serov. Ivan (b.1905) was of course a real, Russian gangster all his life killing people right and left BUT he was good at creating propaganda to please his bosses. His masterpiece was the communist nuclear bomb 1949 until today! Ivan died 1990. Ivan created the Wismut AG in Saxony, Germany. It was a company doing nothing but it needed some actors to create an illusion. Peace! Friede! Apartments were built and ... one complex even had tennis courts!!! The Saxons loved sport.
Ivan's friends at the CIA were also very happy for obvious reasons.
Being a fan of Ivan Serov you are probably as good a liar and propagandist as he too.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 03, 2020, 09:22:57 AM
Why didn't USA "expose" USSR?

Because they detected it with seismology!

And are you flat earther?
No I am a fan of Ivan Serov. Ivan (b.1905) was of course a real, Russian gangster all his life killing people right and left BUT he was good at creating propaganda to please his bosses. His masterpiece was the communist nuclear bomb 1949 until today! Ivan died 1990. Ivan created the Wismut AG in Saxony, Germany. It was a company doing nothing but it needed some actors to create an illusion. Peace! Friede! Apartments were built and ... one complex even had tennis courts!!! The Saxons loved sport.
Ivan's friends at the CIA were also very happy for obvious reasons.
Being a fan of Ivan Serov you are probably as good a liar and propagandist as he too.
No, but I know people that worked for and assisted Serov with the a-bomb hoax 1948/58 in GDR (object 11 of Wismut AG) and it ended badly for them due to Stasi (East German secret police). Serov ended up as chief of KGB, i.e. the Soviet CIA  (today FSB) that worked with CIA to keep the hoax going ... until today. So when GDR/Stasi collapsed 1990 guess who got the Stasi records of their secret agents. Answer is ... CIA.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Denspressure on May 03, 2020, 09:24:38 AM
We need to remember that Heiwa got banned from the Cluesforum because he spoke too much nonsense...

That is how fucking bad it went down on there.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 03, 2020, 02:48:54 PM
Being a fan of Ivan Serov you are probably as good a liar and propagandist as he too.
No, but I know people that worked for and assisted Serov with the a-bomb hoax 1948/58 in GDR (object 11 of Wismut AG) and it ended badly for them due to Stasi (East German secret police). Serov ended up as chief of KGB, i.e. the Soviet CIA  (today FSB) that worked with CIA to keep the hoax going ... until today. So when GDR/Stasi collapsed 1990 guess who got the Stasi records of their secret agents. Answer is ... CIA.
Are you sure that you aren't the one who was hoaxed? It sure sounds like it.

Nuclear explosions can be differentiated from other seismic events by the spectra of the events and many other ways.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 03, 2020, 08:01:16 PM
Being a fan of Ivan Serov you are probably as good a liar and propagandist as he too.
No, but I know people that worked for and assisted Serov with the a-bomb hoax 1948/58 in GDR (object 11 of Wismut AG) and it ended badly for them due to Stasi (East German secret police). Serov ended up as chief of KGB, i.e. the Soviet CIA  (today FSB) that worked with CIA to keep the hoax going ... until today. So when GDR/Stasi collapsed 1990 guess who got the Stasi records of their secret agents. Answer is ... CIA.
Are you sure that you aren't the one who was hoaxed? It sure sounds like it.

Nuclear explosions can be differentiated from other seismic events by the spectra of the events and many other ways.
Just prove that a 'nuclear explosion' can take place in a laboratory with me and you as witnesses and we can discuss. Just a small one - POUFF!
Nuclear explosions in remote deserts or on isolated islands controlled by military forces do not count. They are all photo shop! To fool people.
And seismic events? Everyone knows what an earthquake is. It lasts a long time when the the earth crust moves. A nuclear explosion (in air) lasts a nano-second and doesn't produce any seismic events.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 03, 2020, 09:10:33 PM
Are you sure that you aren't the one who was hoaxed? It sure sounds like it.

Nuclear explosions can be differentiated from other seismic events by the spectra of the events and many other ways.
Just prove that a 'nuclear explosion' can take place in a laboratory with me and you as witnesses and we can discuss. Just a small one - POUFF!
Are you a total idiot!
Even the few accidental over-critical accidents were bad enough. The small nuclear detonation would be close to Hiroshima sized disaster the "Mk-54 (Davy Crockett): 10 or 20 ton yield, Davy Crockett Gun warhead"

Quote from: Heiwa
Nuclear explosions in remote deserts or on isolated islands controlled by military forces do not count.
events.
Of course they are "in remote deserts or on isolated islands controlled by military forces", where else would they be - In the physic's lab at UCB?

Quote from: Heiwa
They are all photo shop! To fool people.
And where is your evidence for that.
Ask the people that lived in Nevada within sight of nuclear blasts there.
Ask the Australia soldiers who were near the nuclear tests at Montebello Island - those that haven't died of some type of cancer.

Quote from: Heiwa
And seismic events? Everyone knows what an earthquake is. It lasts a long time when the the earth crust moves. A nuclear explosion (in air) lasts a nano-second and doesn't produce any seismic events.
What totally ignorant trash! Where did your drag all this ridiculous misinformation from - your drug addled brain?

"A nuclear explosion (in air)" does not only "last a nano-second and" does produce enormous "seismic events".
"The duration of this positive phase increases with yield and distance from ground zero and ranges from 0.2 to 0.5 sec for a 1 KT nuclear air burst to 4 to 10 sec for a 10 Mt explosion. This compares with only a few hundredths of a second for the duration of a blast wave from a conventional high-explosive detonation." from: EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS (https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/fm8-9/1ch3.htm)

You sound like a classic case of cognitive-dissonance combine with severe Dunning-Kruger Syndrome!

And

Read this:
Quote from: Berkeley  Seismology Lab
Of Nuclear Bombs and Earthquakes (https://seismo.berkeley.edu/blog/2009/05/25/of-nuclear-bombs-and-earthquakes.html)
Underground detonations of nuclear weapons can be detected like earthquakes for a simple physical reason. In both cases - either when rocks rupture in a quake or during the explosion - very strong forces rapidly act inside the Earth. This leads to intensive shaking of the rocks around the hypocenter, which in turn generates elastic waves. They can travel thousands of miles and are detected by sensitive seismometers.

Figure 2: Moment tensor for the North Korea seismic event of 25 May 2009 calculated by Prof. Doug Dreger using the BSL's complete waveform regional moment tensor code for a source depth of 800m. The seismic waves from this event are consistent with a shallow explosion source.

There are, however, major differences between the seismograms of natural tectonic earthquakes and those of explosions. Firstly, the waveforms look very different. While an earthquake generates strong S-Waves, the seismograms of underground nuclear test lack most of these waves. Instead, the P- (or primary or pressure) waves dominate the seismogram from the detonation of an atomic bomb below ground (see figure 1).
(http://seismo.berkeley.edu/gifs/NK_LLNL.jpg)

<< Updated low yield. >>
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on May 03, 2020, 09:20:09 PM
Haha.  A nuclear explosion in a laboratory for you to witness up close and personal.    It isn't flash paper, Heiwa.  It doesn't go poof.

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 03, 2020, 11:54:37 PM
Haha.  A nuclear explosion in a laboratory for you to witness up close and personal.    It isn't flash paper, Heiwa.  It doesn't go poof.
Well, to convince me that nuclear fission is explosive and that nuclear bombs are real, I need to see a test and best place is a laboratory with a 1 gram TNT equivalent atomic bomb explosion. For that you only need nano-grams of Uranium 235.

I know crazy people need 20 000 tons TNT equivalency and 60+ kg of Uranium 235 and a test in the middle of Sahara, but it is not my style. No much better a mini test.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2020, 12:07:22 AM

Read this:
Quote from: Berkeley  Seismology Lab
Of Nuclear Bombs and Earthquakes (https://seismo.berkeley.edu/blog/2009/05/25/of-nuclear-bombs-and-earthquakes.html)
Underground detonations of nuclear weapons can be detected like earthquakes for a simple physical reason. In both cases - either when rocks rupture in a quake or during the explosion - very strong forces rapidly act inside the Earth. This leads to intensive shaking of the rocks around the hypocenter, which in turn generates elastic waves. They can travel thousands of miles and are detected by sensitive seismometers.


LOL. An earth quake lasts several minutes and involves great moving masses of Earth crust and energies released. They take place every day. When I lived in Japan I experiences them frequently. No seismometer was required.

An atomic bomb explosion in air is just a FLASH that lasts a nano-second + mushroom cloud and has nothing in common with an earthquake. An underground bomb explosion at say 500 m depth (below an atoll at sea) is similar but no flash/mushroom cloud. And the water above may move and spill out of the atoll ... but it has never been seen ... except of one photo where a ridiculous water mushroom is seen. You'll find the fake photo on the Internet.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 04, 2020, 01:08:01 AM
Haha.  A nuclear explosion in a laboratory for you to witness up close and personal.    It isn't flash paper, Heiwa.  It doesn't go poof.
Well, to convince me that nuclear fission is explosive and that nuclear bombs are real, I need to see a test and best place is a laboratory with a 1 gram TNT equivalent atomic bomb explosion. For that you only need nano-grams of Uranium 235.
And crazy people demand what is, at present, not possible!

The smallest nuclear weapon at present is the "Mk-54 (Davy Crockett): 10 or 20 ton yield, Davy Crockett Gun warhead".
Smaller yields have been hypothesised but it implemented.

Quote from: Heiwa
I know crazy people need 20 000 tons TNT equivalency and 60+ kg of Uranium 235 and a test in the middle of Sahara, but it is not my style. No much better a mini test.
Tough but but below the 10 or 20 ton yield of the Mk-54 isn't available but try that in your kitchen If you like.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2020, 01:58:02 AM
Haha.  A nuclear explosion in a laboratory for you to witness up close and personal.    It isn't flash paper, Heiwa.  It doesn't go poof.
Well, to convince me that nuclear fission is explosive and that nuclear bombs are real, I need to see a test and best place is a laboratory with a 1 gram TNT equivalent atomic bomb explosion. For that you only need nano-grams of Uranium 235.
And crazy people demand what is, at present, not possible!

The smallest nuclear weapon at present is the "Mk-54 (Davy Crockett): 10 or 20 ton yield, Davy Crockett Gun warhead".
Smaller yields have been hypothesised but it implemented.

Quote from: Heiwa
I know crazy people need 20 000 tons TNT equivalency and 60+ kg of Uranium 235 and a test in the middle of Sahara, but it is not my style. No much better a mini test.
Tough but but below the 10 or 20 ton yield of the Mk-54 isn't available but try that in your kitchen If you like.
LOL I still just ask for a 1 gram yield in a US laboratory.
And my kitchen? It is used for other things.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 04, 2020, 02:35:33 AM

Read this:
Quote from: Berkeley  Seismology Lab
Of Nuclear Bombs and Earthquakes (https://seismo.berkeley.edu/blog/2009/05/25/of-nuclear-bombs-and-earthquakes.html)
Underground detonations of nuclear weapons can be detected like earthquakes for a simple physical reason. In both cases - either when rocks rupture in a quake or during the explosion - very strong forces rapidly act inside the Earth. This leads to intensive shaking of the rocks around the hypocenter, which in turn generates elastic waves. They can travel thousands of miles and are detected by sensitive seismometers.

LOL. An earth quake lasts several minutes and involve great moving masses of Earth crust and energies released. They take place every day. When I lived in Japan I experiences them frequently. No seismometer was required.
Sure, when are close enough to the epicenter but sensitive seismometers needed when hundreds of thousands of kilometres away.

Quote from: Heiwa
An atomic bomb explosion in air is just a FLASH that lasts a nano-second + mushroom cloud and has nothing in common with an earthquake.
Where do you this trash about "An atomic bomb explosion in air is just a FLASH that lasts a nano-second".

Have a look at these extremely high speed photographs!
Quote
Ultra-Fast Nuclear Detonation Pictures (http://10-nanosecond long images taken 1 millisecond after various nuclear explosions)
10-nanosecond long images taken 1 millisecond after various nuclear explosions

Most of the following images were taken using Rapatronic cameras, ultra-high speed, single-frame cameras developed in the 1940s by Dr. Harold Edgerton. The duration of the exposure is typically 10 nanoseconds (0.00000001 of a second.

(http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb8.jpg)

This image captures two common elements: the spikes (called "rope tricks") and an uneven surface shape.

At this stage of the detonation the surface of the fireball has a temperature of 20,000 degrees, three times hotter than the sun's surface. At such temperatures the amount of thermal radiation (light) given off is so enormous anything it touches is vaporized ahead of the expanding fireball. The three spikes in this image result from the guide wires supporting the tower on which the bomb was located absorbing enough heat to turn into light emitting plasma. Because thermal radiation travels faster than the fireball, the spikes extend out ahead of it.

(http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb7.jpg)

The support tower in the image above provides a convenient size scale. Most of the above images capture the fireball when it is 100 feet in diameter, typically 0.001 seconds after the control operator pressed the "fire" button.

(http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb13.jpg)

The image above was taken 25 milliseconds later than the others and shows the fireball expanded to 300 feet in diameter, the size of a football field. Instead of a sphere, the fireball has become large enough so that its bottom is in contact with the earth. The even, light grey ring near the bottom of the smooth fireball (more properly called a firedome in this case) is the convolution of the shock wave from the fireball and the reflection of that shock wave from the surface of the earth. This doubly-enhanced shock wave is the area of maximum destructive force, as shown by the expanding ring of rubble below it.
So much for your ridiculous "An atomic bomb explosion in air is just a FLASH that lasts a nano-second"!

Even after 25 ms the expanding fireball is only 300 feet in diameter.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 04, 2020, 02:41:05 AM
Tough but but below the 10 or 20 ton yield of the Mk-54 isn't available but try that in your kitchen If you like.
LOL I still just ask for a 1 gram yield in a US laboratory.
And my kitchen? It is used for other things.
I'm sorry but reality doesn't agree with your stupid "just ask for a 1 gram yield in a US laboratory" - tough cheese!
But the post before this shows the what the initial fireball really looks like.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2020, 06:31:13 AM
Tough but but below the 10 or 20 ton yield of the Mk-54 isn't available but try that in your kitchen If you like.
LOL I still just ask for a 1 gram yield in a US laboratory.
And my kitchen? It is used for other things.
I'm sorry but reality doesn't agree with your stupid "just ask for a 1 gram yield in a US laboratory" - tough cheese!
But the post before this shows the what the initial fireball really looks like.
Best way to prove that nuclear bombs exist is of course a laboratory test of a small, civilian atomic bomb being exploded. There is no need for a full scale, military test in a desert.
But you have to ensure that the fireball is small and does not destroy the lab.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 04, 2020, 03:11:09 PM
Tough but but below the 10 or 20 ton yield of the Mk-54 isn't available but try that in your kitchen If you like.
LOL I still just ask for a 1 gram yield in a US laboratory.
And my kitchen? It is used for other things.
I'm sorry but reality doesn't agree with your stupid "just ask for a 1 gram yield in a US laboratory" - tough cheese!
But the post before this shows the what the initial fireball really looks like.
Best way to prove that nuclear bombs exist is of course a laboratory test of a small, civilian atomic bomb being exploded. There is no need for a full scale, military test in a desert.
But you have to ensure that the fireball is small and does not destroy the lab.
Sorry, but reality so far doesn't permit "a laboratory test of a small, civilian atomic bomb being exploded", tough!
But reality never bothered you did it!

There are numerous things that cannot be demonstrated in a lab and, in particular, a fusion bomb might be rather difficult to demonstrate on your desk!

Warning: Don't try this at home:

Ivy Mike Countdown and detonation

That's a "little one" of only 10 megatons.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on May 04, 2020, 04:09:08 PM
Tough but but below the 10 or 20 ton yield of the Mk-54 isn't available but try that in your kitchen If you like.
LOL I still just ask for a 1 gram yield in a US laboratory.
And my kitchen? It is used for other things.
I'm sorry but reality doesn't agree with your stupid "just ask for a 1 gram yield in a US laboratory" - tough cheese!
But the post before this shows the what the initial fireball really looks like.
Best way to prove that nuclear bombs exist is of course a laboratory test of a small, civilian atomic bomb being exploded. There is no need for a full scale, military test in a desert.
But you have to ensure that the fireball is small and does not destroy the lab.
Sorry, but reality so far doesn't permit "a laboratory test of a small, civilian atomic bomb being exploded", tough!
But reality never bothered you did it!

There are numerous things that cannot be demonstrated in a lab and, in particular, a fusion bomb might be rather difficult to demonstrate on your desk!

Warning: Don't try this at home:

Ivy Mike Countdown and detonation

That's a "little one" of only 10 megatons.

The LHC has allegedly created explosions that had temperatures of 5.5 trillion degrees though

That kind of heat takes a steaming dump over atomic bombs
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 04, 2020, 05:26:27 PM
Warning: Don't try this at home:

Ivy Mike Countdown and detonation

That's a "little one" of only 10 megatons.

The LHC has allegedly created explosions that had temperatures of 5.5 trillion degrees though

That kind of heat takes a steaming dump over atomic bombs
That's an H-bomb and the topic is "Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?" and not high temperatures.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2020, 07:52:05 PM
Warning: Don't try this at home:

Ivy Mike Countdown and detonation

That's a "little one" of only 10 megatons.

The LHC has allegedly created explosions that had temperatures of 5.5 trillion degrees though

That kind of heat takes a steaming dump over atomic bombs
That's an H-bomb and the topic is "Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?" and not high temperatures.
You are right (see post #1). Personally I do not believe in nuclear bombs after having
1. visited Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Albuquerque and their a-bomb museums,
2. visited Wismut AG and their uranium mines in Saxony, Germany and
3. studied the history of communist a-bomb building by Stalin, Beria and Serov.
My conclusion is that nuclear bombs are pure propaganda by USA & Co. The objective was to quickly terminate WW2 in Japan that started already 1937.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 04, 2020, 09:15:22 PM
Warning: Don't try this at home:

Ivy Mike Countdown and detonation

That's a "little one" of only 10 megatons.

The LHC has allegedly created explosions that had temperatures of 5.5 trillion degrees though
That's an H-bomb and the topic is "Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?" and not high temperatures.
You are right (see post #1). Personally I do not believe in nuclear bombs
And personally you don't seem to believe in:
Your not believing in nuclear bombs does seem mean much in the real world.

Your silly website is proof of your inability to understand these things with its inane explanations of why these aren't supposed to work.

You don't seem to believe in anything that you can't understand and that seems to be anything more complicated than a bottle opener.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on May 04, 2020, 09:58:09 PM
Warning: Don't try this at home:

Ivy Mike Countdown and detonation

That's a "little one" of only 10 megatons.

The LHC has allegedly created explosions that had temperatures of 5.5 trillion degrees though
That's an H-bomb and the topic is "Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?" and not high temperatures.
You are right (see post #1). Personally I do not believe in nuclear bombs
And personally you don't seem to believe in:
  • atmospheric braking on reentry,
  • ICMBs,
  • humans in space,
  • Lunar landings,
  • Interplanetary space missions etc, etc.
Your not believing in nuclear bombs does seem mean much in the real world.

Your silly website is proof of your inability to understand these things with its inane explanations of why these aren't supposed to work.

You don't seem to believe in anything that you can't understand and that seems to be anything more complicated than a bottle opener.

Regardless of a nuclear bombs validity or not, even if they work as advertised it's still a pretty shit an inefficient means of destruction.

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 04, 2020, 10:26:00 PM
Regardless of a nuclear bombs validity or not, even if they work as advertised it's still a pretty shit an inefficient means of destruction.
I agree and I wish that nuclear weapons were not real but real people need to face the reality that terrible weapons do exist.
But there are so many conventional weapons that are used and inflict terrible injuries.
In WW2 an estimated 85 million people were killed with convenient weapons and many more with terrible physical and psychological injuries.
Under 220,000 were killed by the two A-bombs, including those that died later from injuries and radiation - but, of course, that was with only two bombs.
So there are no "good" weapons.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 04, 2020, 11:20:20 PM

And personally you don't seem to believe in:
  • atmospheric braking on reentry,
  • ICMBs,
  • humans in space,
  • Lunar landings,
  • Interplanetary space missions etc, etc.
Your not believing in nuclear bombs does seem mean much in the real world.

Your silly website is proof of your inability to understand these things with its inane explanations of why these aren't supposed to work.

You don't seem to believe in anything that you can't understand and that seems to be anything more complicated than a bottle opener.

Thanks for comments and questions.
Yes, I don't believe in
for reasons given at my popular website, i.e. critical thinking and analysis of info provided.
Re topic I believed in nuclear weapons when I was small and believed in Father Christmas. Then I had the chance to meet people involved in the a-bomb hoax and I concluded a-bombs are simple propaganda since 1945.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 04, 2020, 11:54:22 PM

And personally you don't seem to believe in:
  • atmospheric braking on reentry,
  • ICMBs,
  • humans in space,
  • Lunar landings,
  • Interplanetary space missions etc, etc.
Your not believing in nuclear bombs does seem mean much in the real world.

Your silly website is proof of your inability to understand these things with its inane explanations of why these aren't supposed to work.

You don't seem to believe in anything that you can't understand and that seems to be anything more complicated than a bottle opener.

Thanks for comments and questions.
Yes, I don't believe in
  • atmospheric braking on reentry,
  • ICMBs,
  • humans in space,
  • Lunar landings,
  • Interplanetary space missions etc, etc.
for reasons given at my popular website, i.e. critical thinking and analysis of info provided.
Re topic I believed in nuclear weapons when I was small and believed in Father Christmas. Then I had the chance to meet people involved in the a-bomb hoax and I concluded a-bombs are simple propaganda since 1945.
All I've seen on your "popular crappy website, i.e. critical scrambled thinking  and  totally incorrect analysis of info provided."

Your site proves that you haven't the slightest real understanding the things you refuse to believe.
Possibly you'd believe more if you learned more from those thst do understand these things.
But you think that you're smattering than everyone else so refuse to believe them, how sad :(.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 04, 2020, 11:57:44 PM
Heiwa is fucking AWESOME 
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 05, 2020, 12:45:01 AM

And personally you don't seem to believe in:
  • atmospheric braking on reentry,
  • ICMBs,
  • humans in space,
  • Lunar landings,
  • Interplanetary space missions etc, etc.
Your not believing in nuclear bombs does seem mean much in the real world.

Your silly website is proof of your inability to understand these things with its inane explanations of why these aren't supposed to work.

You don't seem to believe in anything that you can't understand and that seems to be anything more complicated than a bottle opener.

Thanks for comments and questions.
Yes, I don't believe in
  • atmospheric braking on reentry,
  • ICMBs,
  • humans in space,
  • Lunar landings,
  • Interplanetary space missions etc, etc.
for reasons given at my popular website, i.e. critical thinking and analysis of info provided.
Re topic I believed in nuclear weapons when I was small and believed in Father Christmas. Then I had the chance to meet people involved in the a-bomb hoax and I concluded a-bombs are simple propaganda since 1945.
All I've seen on your "popular crappy website, i.e. critical scrambled thinking  and  totally incorrect analysis of info provided."

Your site proves that you haven't the slightest real understanding the things you refuse to believe.
Possibly you'd believe more if you learned more from those thst do understand these things.
But you think that you're smattering than everyone else so refuse to believe them, how sad :(.
Can you, please, give/copy/paste some examples of my misunderstanding of atomic bomb things (topic) and I will explain!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sandokhan on May 05, 2020, 01:10:44 AM
It is very easy to settle this debate, one way or the other.

Did Chadwick discover the neutron in 1932?

The answer is most emphatically and definitely, no:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm

A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 05, 2020, 02:39:53 AM

A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON.
So, you're saying he discovered it in 1933?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 05, 2020, 03:29:04 AM
It is very easy to settle this debate, one way or the other.
No, that diatribe settles nothing!

Quote from: sandokhan
Did Chadwick discover the neutron in 1932?

The answer is most emphatically and definitely, no:
So you say but even if James Chadwick didn't discover the neutron in 1932 that doesn't mean that the neutron does not exist.

Quote from: sandokhan
http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm

A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON.
That diatribe of nothing innuendo is aimed at nothing more thst discrediting James Chadwick but does nothing to disprove the existence of the neutron.

So, you have neither proven "that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON" nor provided the slightest evidence against the existence of the neutron.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 05, 2020, 10:41:54 AM
It is very easy to settle this debate, one way or the other.
No, that diatribe settles nothing!

Quote from: sandokhan
Did Chadwick discover the neutron in 1932?

The answer is most emphatically and definitely, no:
So you say but even if James Chadwick didn't discover the neutron in 1932 that doesn't mean that the neutron does not exist.

Quote from: sandokhan
http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm

A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON.
That diatribe of nothing innuendo is aimed at nothing more thst discrediting James Chadwick but does nothing to disprove the existence of the neutron.

So, you have neither proven "that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON" nor provided the slightest evidence against the existence of the neutron.
Can you, please, give/copy/paste some examples of my misunderstanding of atomic bomb things (topic) and I will explain!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: JJA on May 05, 2020, 12:03:57 PM
Can you, please, give/copy/paste some examples of my misunderstanding of atomic bomb things (topic) and I will explain!

I think the basic misunderstanding you have is summed up with this quote...

I do not believe in nuclear bombs

That's a pretty big misunderstanding.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sokarul on May 05, 2020, 01:18:18 PM
Have you visited Rocky Flats yet?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MicroBeta on May 05, 2020, 04:09:26 PM
And people in Las Vegas saw nukes detonate. I was dialy life, but they are all shills, let me guess O0

And if you agree that they saw something, you need to agree there is entire infrastructure build in order to have THOUSANDS od tons of TNT brought to place


And Nevada Test site in approx 80 km off Las Vegas, so shoud curve of earth make bottoms of Mushrom clouds hidden? ;)
They used to a-bomb parties in Vegas to watch the testing.  People traveled from all over the country to see them.  Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of locals that saw them all.  I brought that up to Anders (Heiwa) several times.  He dismisses it as lies and propaganda.  He even went on to claim that the government use Photoshop to create the pictures.  You read that right.  He said the US government have Photoshop 30 years before Adobe released it.  ;D

Mike
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on May 05, 2020, 04:30:06 PM
And people in Las Vegas saw nukes detonate. I was dialy life, but they are all shills, let me guess O0

And if you agree that they saw something, you need to agree there is entire infrastructure build in order to have THOUSANDS od tons of TNT brought to place


And Nevada Test site in approx 80 km off Las Vegas, so shoud curve of earth make bottoms of Mushrom clouds hidden? ;)
They used to a-bomb parties in Vegas to watch the testing.  People traveled from all over the country to see them.  Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of locals that saw them all.  I brought that up to Anders (Heiwa) several times.  He dismisses it as lies and propaganda.  He even went on to claim that the government use Photoshop to create the pictures.  You read that right.  He said the US government have Photoshop 30 years before Adobe released it.  ;D

Mike

Only an American would be dumb enough to think a nuke is a spectacle to party around. I wonder how many of those bozos were irradiated? Deserved
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 05, 2020, 04:58:39 PM
Only an American would be dumb enough to think a nuke is a spectacle to party around. I wonder how many of those bozos were irradiated? Deserved
Considering that the Nevada test site is some 65 miles away from Las Vegas, I doubt that anyone was irradiated from the initial blast.  Whether or not they got any radiation that might have been carried by the wind is a different story.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MicroBeta on May 05, 2020, 05:00:15 PM
Best way to prove that nuclear bombs exist is of course a laboratory test of a small, civilian atomic bomb being exploded. There is no need for a full scale, military test in a desert.
But you have to ensure that the fireball is small and does not destroy the lab.
You claim to be a millionaire and a supposed engineer so why don't you do it?

Mike
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 06, 2020, 12:40:55 AM
Best way to prove that nuclear bombs exist is of course a laboratory test of a small, civilian atomic bomb being exploded. There is no need for a full scale, military test in a desert.
But you have to ensure that the fireball is small and does not destroy the lab.
You claim to be a millionaire and a supposed engineer so why don't you do it?

Mike
No, now and then I only test the quality of various welded steel construction joints using established non-destructive methods. I can do on site and in a lab.
Re your question I know what fission is and how to observe it in a laboratory. It has been done since 1938.  But explosive fission? Bringing two pieces of uranium together to become a critical mass of uranium that becomes pure energy in a FLASH I cannot do. To me the suggestion is ridiculous.
I know US army did it full scale in Nevada in the 1950/60's so people in Las Vegas far away could see something but that doesn't prove anything.
I am a serious person. Try to provide a serious reply!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 06, 2020, 05:58:35 AM
Bringing two pieces of uranium together to become a critical mass of uranium that becomes pure energy in a FLASH I cannot do. To me the suggestion is ridiculous.
Yes, your "suggestion is ridiculous" it doesn't work that way.

And if you hope to cause a nuclear detonation that way you'll be sorely disappointed and very dead! In which order I wouldn't know ;D.
It's been very close to happening accidentally a couple of times.

If you really want a nuclear detonation then it's a lot more complicated but why should I explain it to YOU - an idiot like you would probably blow Monaco up :o.

Quote from: Heiwa
I know US army did it full scale in Nevada in the 1950/60's so people in Las Vegas far away could see something but that doesn't prove anything.
Well, the saying that the "US army did it full scale in Nevada in the 1950/60's so people in Las Vegas far away could see something" is totally idiotic, just what we'd expect from you.

But it's safer for the world if you don't believe these things - that way you're less likely to kill everybody around you.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 06, 2020, 06:03:20 AM

A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON.
So, you're saying he discovered it in 1933?
He probably discovered it in 1931 but waited until 1932 to announce the discovery.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 06, 2020, 06:57:02 AM
Bringing two pieces of uranium together to become a critical mass of uranium that becomes pure energy in a FLASH I cannot do. To me the suggestion is ridiculous.
Yes, your "suggestion is ridiculous" it doesn't work that way.

And if you hope to cause a nuclear detonation that way you'll be sorely disappointed and very dead! In which order I wouldn't know ;D.
It's been very close to happening accidentally a couple of times.

If you really want a nuclear detonation then it's a lot more complicated but why should I explain it to YOU - an idiot like you would probably blow Monaco up :o.

Quote from: Heiwa
I know US army did it full scale in Nevada in the 1950/60's so people in Las Vegas far away could see something but that doesn't prove anything.
Well, the saying that the "US army did it full scale in Nevada in the 1950/60's so people in Las Vegas far away could see something" is totally idiotic, just what we'd expect from you.

But it's safer for the world if you don't believe these things - that way you're less likely to kill everybody around you.
So how does it - ignition of a nuclear bomb - work?

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 06, 2020, 09:55:30 AM
So how does it - ignition of a nuclear bomb - work?
You still don't know the difference between ignition and detonation, do you?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 06, 2020, 11:50:07 AM
So how does it - ignition of a nuclear bomb - work?
You still don't know the difference between ignition and detonation, do you?
ignite = set on fire
detonate = causing the stuff of a bomb to explode
Anyway, the problem remains how to cause a nuclear bomb killing people. Compressing two non-critical masses of fissile material to double density with a neutron in between so it becomes one critical mass that sets the surrounding on fire vaporizing people in a FLASH? 1 + 1 = 1!
Yes, nuclear scientists say so. I just laugh at them! Nuclear bombs do not exist!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 06, 2020, 11:55:56 AM
Yes, nuclear scientists say so. I just laugh at them!
That's okay, I'm sure that nuclear scientists laugh at you as well.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MouseWalker on May 06, 2020, 01:11:27 PM
It is very easy to settle this debate, one way or the other.

Did Chadwick discover the neutron in 1932?

The answer is most emphatically and definitely, no:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm

A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON.

Are you saying that the neutron does not exist, if sow you are simply wrong.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on May 06, 2020, 03:36:24 PM
It is very easy to settle this debate, one way or the other.

Did Chadwick discover the neutron in 1932?

The answer is most emphatically and definitely, no:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm

A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON.

Are you saying that the neutron does not exist, if sow you are simply wrong.

Maybe in his Plato's cave there is no neutron. So he is correct for his cave.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MicroBeta on May 06, 2020, 03:46:24 PM
Best way to prove that nuclear bombs exist is of course a laboratory test of a small, civilian atomic bomb being exploded. There is no need for a full scale, military test in a desert.
But you have to ensure that the fireball is small and does not destroy the lab.
You claim to be a millionaire and a supposed engineer so why don't you do it?

Mike
No, now and then I only test the quality of various welded steel construction joints using established non-destructive methods. I can do on site and in a lab.
Re your question I know what fission is and how to observe it in a laboratory. It has been done since 1938.  But explosive fission? Bringing two pieces of uranium together to become a critical mass of uranium that becomes pure energy in a FLASH I cannot do. To me the suggestion is ridiculous.
I know US army did it full scale in Nevada in the 1950/60's so people in Las Vegas far away could see something but that doesn't prove anything.
I am a serious person. Try to provide a serious reply!
You claim to be a millionaire so if you won't do it the STFU about it.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 06, 2020, 04:00:11 PM
It is very easy to settle this debate, one way or the other.

Did Chadwick discover the neutron in 1932?

The answer is most emphatically and definitely, no:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm

A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON.

Are you saying that the neutron does not exist, if sow you are simply wrong.

Maybe in his Plato's cave there is no neutron. So he is correct for his cave.
Maybe that's the answer we've all been looking for: Sandokhan really is a Flat Earth Scientist and Flat Earth Sultan but only of his own little Universe - his Plato's Cave.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 06, 2020, 04:44:00 PM
who's winning?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on May 06, 2020, 07:47:24 PM
who's winning?

Me of course.

My day was draggin'  so I decided to go teabaggin'.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 06, 2020, 09:16:18 PM
who's winning?

Me of course.

I meant who else is winning.  ::)
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 07, 2020, 12:15:37 AM
Yes, nuclear scientists say so. I just laugh at them!
That's okay, I'm sure that nuclear scientists laugh at you as well.
Not really. Recently I asked all nuclear physics lecturers/students at Uppsala university, Sweden, to describe 'explosive nuclear fission' to me, e.g.how to do it small scale in a lab. Only two replied and none could provide any useful information. Actually one said he would do it, but I haven't heard from him lately.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 07, 2020, 01:08:25 AM

 Recently I asked all nuclear physics lecturers/students at Uppsala university, Sweden, to describe 'explosive nuclear fission' to me, e.g.how to do it small scale in a lab. Only two replied and none could provide any useful information.


"YOU HAVE BEEN BLOCKED"  is not an actual response.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 07, 2020, 01:09:35 AM
Yes, nuclear scientists say so. I just laugh at them!
That's okay, I'm sure that nuclear scientists laugh at you as well.
Not really. Recently I asked all nuclear physics lecturers/students at Uppsala university, Sweden, to describe 'explosive nuclear fission' to me, e.g.how to do it small scale in a lab. Only two replied and none could provide any useful information.
Might that be because "explosive nuclear fission" on a  "small scale in a lab" is not possible unlike
 large scale explosive nuclear fission of tens to about 500,000 tons TNT equivalent.

HD Operation Ivy King shot 500kt 1952

That's with over 4 x critical mass of uranium.

And this close to the smallest fission explosion:

W-54 Davy Crocket Test Fire (Tiny Nuke)
"with a yield between 10 and 20 tons TNT equivalent".

Try that in your office if you like :o.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 07, 2020, 01:23:29 AM
Quote from: Heiwa

I don't believe tsunamis exist until I see one destroy an aquarium.


MAKE UP YOUR OWN HEIWA QUOTE . . .    :P
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sokarul on May 07, 2020, 05:02:00 AM
So how does it - ignition of a nuclear bomb - work?
You still don't know the difference between ignition and detonation, do you?
ignite = set on fire
detonate = causing the stuff of a bomb to explode
Anyway, the problem remains how to cause a nuclear bomb killing people. Compressing two non-critical masses of fissile material to double density with a neutron in between so it becomes one critical mass that sets the surrounding on fire vaporizing people in a FLASH? 1 + 1 = 1!
Yes, nuclear scientists say so. I just laugh at them! Nuclear bombs do not exist!
You can use the gun barrel design or the sphere method. Both work.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MouseWalker on May 07, 2020, 10:42:40 AM
Nuclear weapons do not switch off street lights. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .

Sorry for the late response; you are telling me that this is fake, well sorry to disappoint you I was an eye witness to it.
Quote
9 July 1962 USA detonated a hydrogen bomb in space over Johnston Island in the Pacific. The (fake) explosion took place 400 kilometers above the Johnston Island (atoll). That really was vacuum space! The burst had an explosive yield of 1.45 megatons - approximately a hundred times that of the (fake) Hiroshima bomb (around 13 kilotons), media said:
... a brilliant white flash erased the darkness like a photoflash. Then the entire sky turned light green for about a second. In several more seconds, a deep red aurora, several moon diameters in size, formed where the blast had been. A white plasma jet came slowly out of the top of the red aurora (over Johnston Island) and painted a white stripe across the sky from north to south in about one minute. A deep red aurora appeared over Samoa at the south end of the white plasma jet. This visual display lasted for perhaps ten minutes before slowly fading. There was no sound at all.
Cecil R. Coale, PhD
Remember that this occurred at 400 000 m altitude in vacuum space, when the missile with the bomb was returning after having been further away from Earth. Read this what people on ground just below the explosion saw:
"At zero time at Johnston, a white flash occurred, but as soon as one could remove his goggles, no intense light was present. A second after shot time a mottled red disc was observed directly overhead and covered the sky down to about 45 degrees from the zenith. Generally, the red mottled region was more intense on the eastern portions. Along the magnetic north-south line through the burst, a white-yellow streak extended and grew to the north from near zenith. The width of the white streaked region grew from a few degrees at a few seconds to about 5-10 degrees in 30 seconds. Growth of the auroral region to the north was by addition of new lines developing from west to east. The white-yellow auroral streamers receded upward from the horizon to the north and grew to the south and at about 2 minutes the white-yellow bands were still about 10 degrees wide and extended mainly from near zenith to the south. By about two minutes, the red disc region had completed disappearance in the west and was rapidly fading on the eastern portion of the overhead disc". Bla, bla, bla!
What a fireworks display! You can also watch it here. Watch the hydrogen bomb lifting off at time 4.27 to 1 100 000 m top altitude (5.09) to start dropping down to explode at 400 000 m altitude and the explosion a little later ... seen from far away! They forgot to film it from Johnston! However ... it was just early fake news! Just propaganda invented by the usual clowns and non-existing PhDs. No merchant ships in the vicinity observed anything unusual that night. The event (incl. the fusion) never took place. I pay anyone Euro 1M to show I am wrong!
As an eye witness do I qualify to present evidence of the occurrence of that test?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MicroBeta on May 07, 2020, 01:07:56 PM
So how does it - ignition of a nuclear bomb - work?
You already know the answer.  You just don't believe it.  You personal incredulity doesn't change scientific fact.

Mike
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 07, 2020, 04:26:06 PM
So how does it - ignition of a nuclear bomb - work?
You already know the answer.  You just don't believe it.  You personal incredulity doesn't change scientific fact.

Mike
Correct. I don't believe you can ignite/detonate a nuclear bomb as it cannot be done in a laboratory and similar using scientific methods.
All nuclear bomb ignitions/detonations take place full scale, secretly at remote locations by military men and only evidence is a photo.
Please, give me a break.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 07, 2020, 05:20:36 PM
All nuclear bomb ignitions/detonations take place full scale, secretly at remote locations by military men and only evidence is a photo.
Please, give me a break.
Of course they do!  Do you expect nuclear bomb ignitions/detonations take place on the top of the Eiffel Tower :o?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MicroBeta on May 07, 2020, 07:23:27 PM
So how does it - ignition of a nuclear bomb - work?
You already know the answer.  You just don't believe it.  You personal incredulity doesn't change scientific fact.

Mike
Correct. I don't believe you can ignite/detonate a nuclear bomb as it cannot be done in a laboratory and similar using scientific methods.
All nuclear bomb ignitions/detonations take place full scale, secretly at remote locations by military men and only evidence is a photo.
Please, give me a break.
Like I said, your personal incredulity doesn't mean shit.  What you believe is irrelevant.

Mike
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 07, 2020, 10:26:48 PM
So how does it - ignition of a nuclear bomb - work?
You already know the answer.  You just don't believe it.  You personal incredulity doesn't change scientific fact.

Mike
Correct. I don't believe you can ignite/detonate a nuclear bomb as it cannot be done in a laboratory and similar using scientific methods.
All nuclear bomb ignitions/detonations take place full scale, secretly at remote locations by military men and only evidence is a photo.
Please, give me a break.
Like I said, your personal incredulity doesn't mean shit.  What you believe is irrelevant.

Mike
Like I said, it would be interesting to detonate a nano-a-bomb in a laboratory and study it scientifically. Exploding full scale a-bombs underground in secret locations is, like I said, not scientific. To me any a-bomb explosion is old Fake News!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MicroBeta on May 08, 2020, 02:35:51 AM
So how does it - ignition of a nuclear bomb - work?
You already know the answer.  You just don't believe it.  You personal incredulity doesn't change scientific fact.

Mike
Correct. I don't believe you can ignite/detonate a nuclear bomb as it cannot be done in a laboratory and similar using scientific methods.
All nuclear bomb ignitions/detonations take place full scale, secretly at remote locations by military men and only evidence is a photo.
Please, give me a break.
Like I said, your personal incredulity doesn't mean shit.  What you believe is irrelevant.

Mike
Like I said, it would be interesting to detonate a nano-a-bomb in a laboratory and study it scientifically. Exploding full scale a-bombs underground in secret locations is, like I said, not scientific. To me any a-bomb explosion is old Fake News!
Clearly, you don't understand how a nuclear bomb works.  If you actually did you'd know that there isn't an explosive powerful enough the create the pressures necessary in a "nono-a-bomb" to get start the reaction.  They barely did it in Fat Man and Little Boy...the compression wave on Fat Man only caused ≈1.5% of the uranium to fission. 

The very fact you think a "nono-a-bomb" in a lab will work shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Mike
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 08, 2020, 05:25:09 AM
So how does it - ignition of a nuclear bomb - work?
You already know the answer.  You just don't believe it.  You personal incredulity doesn't change scientific fact.

Mike
Correct. I don't believe you can ignite/detonate a nuclear bomb as it cannot be done in a laboratory and similar using scientific methods.
All nuclear bomb ignitions/detonations take place full scale, secretly at remote locations by military men and only evidence is a photo.
Please, give me a break.
Like I said, your personal incredulity doesn't mean shit.  What you believe is irrelevant.

Mike
Like I said, it would be interesting to detonate a nano-a-bomb in a laboratory and study it scientifically. Exploding full scale a-bombs underground in secret locations is, like I said, not scientific. To me any a-bomb explosion is old Fake News!
Clearly, you don't understand how a nuclear bomb works.  If you actually did you'd know that there isn't an explosive powerful enough the create the pressures necessary in a "nono-a-bomb" to get start the reaction.  They barely did it in Fat Man and Little Boy...the compression wave on Fat Man only caused ≈1.5% of the uranium to fission. 

The very fact you think a "nono-a-bomb" in a lab will work shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Mike
Thanks, so an a-bomb will not work in a lab. You need a complete desert à la Alamagordo, NM, for it. And then you detonate or ignite it there July 1945.
BOOM. FLASH. destruction, bla, bla, bla! 
And then?
You tell POTUS Truman that it worked and Truman ordered - drop two ones on Japan killing 200 000 civilians!
Imagine if life were so simple. But it is not irrelevant.
You sound ... sick. Have you talked to a doctor recently?

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sokarul on May 08, 2020, 05:30:00 AM
First self sustaining chain reaction.

https://www.uchicago.edu/features/how_the_first_chain_reaction_changed_science/
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 08, 2020, 06:23:33 AM
Imagine if life were so simple.
It seems to me that you're the one who wants it to be simple.  The rest of us understand that the physics alone demand that it can't be that simple.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 08, 2020, 06:48:46 AM
Imagine if life were so simple.
It seems to me that you're the one who wants it to be simple.  The rest of us understand that the physics alone demand that it can't be that simple.
Thanks ... and you needed an NM desert to test it? You sound like another American nut case. Do you work for Donald? Inherited the job from granpa working for Truman?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 08, 2020, 10:38:47 AM
Imagine if life were so simple.
It seems to me that you're the one who wants it to be simple.  The rest of us understand that the physics alone demand that it can't be that simple.
Thanks ... and you needed an NM desert to test it?
Where would you rather they be tested, in the middle of downtown Paris? ???

If you want to test a top secret weapon of mass destruction, then yes, a remote, unpopulated location is needed.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 08, 2020, 09:50:18 PM
Imagine if life were so simple.
It seems to me that you're the one who wants it to be simple.  The rest of us understand that the physics alone demand that it can't be that simple.
Thanks ... and you needed an NM desert to test it?
Where would you rather they be tested, in the middle of downtown Paris? ???

If you want to test a top secret weapon of mass destruction, then yes, a remote, unpopulated location is needed.
Well, Marie Curie and husband did all their research about radioactivity in a lab in downtown Paris >100 years ago. It was peer reviewed and in the public domain. No need for top secrecy. And Marie died 1934 at age 66. They say it was due to radiation exposure, but I doubt it. Maybe it was due to poisoning?
So a remote, unpopulated location is not required to test a nano-sized a-bomb, if you believe it can explode.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MicroBeta on May 09, 2020, 02:58:30 AM
Imagine if life were so simple.
It seems to me that you're the one who wants it to be simple.  The rest of us understand that the physics alone demand that it can't be that simple.
Thanks ... and you needed an NM desert to test it?
Where would you rather they be tested, in the middle of downtown Paris? ???

If you want to test a top secret weapon of mass destruction, then yes, a remote, unpopulated location is needed.
Well, Marie Curie and husband did all their research about radioactivity in a lab in downtown Paris >100 years ago. It was peer reviewed and in the public domain. No need for top secrecy. And Marie died 1934 at age 66. They say it was due to radiation exposure, but I doubt it. Maybe it was due to poisoning?
So a remote, unpopulated location is not required to test a nano-sized a-bomb, if you believe it can explode.
What evidence do you have that Marie Curie died of something other that radiation exposure?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 09, 2020, 03:26:16 AM
So a remote, unpopulated location is not required to test a nano-sized a-bomb, if you believe it can explode.

And "a nano-sized a-bomb" is currently theoretically and prsctically impossible so even I don't "believe it can explode."

If you're as smart as you claim are you should be able to design and build it yourself!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: JJA on May 09, 2020, 07:30:01 AM
So a remote, unpopulated location is not required to test a nano-sized a-bomb, if you believe it can explode.

You are asking to test something that does not exist.  There are no nano sized fission bombs.

That is like demanding proof that a horse can pull a heavy cart by demanding a tiny living horse that you can hold in your hand.

If you want to see a single atom explode however, that's possible.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 09, 2020, 01:17:09 PM
Imagine if life were so simple.
It seems to me that you're the one who wants it to be simple.  The rest of us understand that the physics alone demand that it can't be that simple.
Thanks ... and you needed an NM desert to test it?
Where would you rather they be tested, in the middle of downtown Paris? ???

If you want to test a top secret weapon of mass destruction, then yes, a remote, unpopulated location is needed.
Well, Marie Curie and husband did all their research about radioactivity in a lab in downtown Paris >100 years ago.
Marie Curie and her husband weren't working on atomic bombs.

It was peer reviewed and in the public domain.
What makes you think that nuclear bombs haven't been peer reviewed?  Also, a fair bit of the nuclear physics and technology is in the public domain.

No need for top secrecy.
Why would you want weapons of mass destruction to be freely available?  Are you a terrorist?

And Marie died 1934 at age 66. They say it was due to radiation exposure, but I doubt it. Maybe it was due to poisoning?
Yes, radiation poisoning.  Ask your Russian friends about it.

So a remote, unpopulated location is not required to test a nano-sized a-bomb, if you believe it can explode.
Even conventional explosives are generally tested in remote, unpopulated areas.  I thought that you were interested in safety.  Testing bombs in a populated area doesn't sound very safe to me.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 09, 2020, 06:30:48 PM
Imagine if life were so simple.
It seems to me that you're the one who wants it to be simple.  The rest of us understand that the physics alone demand that it can't be that simple.
Thanks ... and you needed an NM desert to test it?
Where would you rather they be tested, in the middle of downtown Paris? ???

If you want to test a top secret weapon of mass destruction, then yes, a remote, unpopulated location is needed.
Well, Marie Curie and husband did all their research about radioactivity in a lab in downtown Paris >100 years ago.
Marie Curie and her husband weren't working on atomic bombs.

It was peer reviewed and in the public domain.
What makes you think that nuclear bombs haven't been peer reviewed?  Also, a fair bit of the nuclear physics and technology is in the public domain.

No need for top secrecy.
Why would you want weapons of mass destruction to be freely available?  Are you a terrorist?

And Marie died 1934 at age 66. They say it was due to radiation exposure, but I doubt it. Maybe it was due to poisoning?
Yes, radiation poisoning.  Ask your Russian friends about it.

So a remote, unpopulated location is not required to test a nano-sized a-bomb, if you believe it can explode.
Even conventional explosives are generally tested in remote, unpopulated areas.  I thought that you were interested in safety.  Testing bombs in a populated area doesn't sound very safe to me.
Thanks for questions.
My doubts about a-bombs started in the 1960’s when university friends of my grandfather/future Nobel prize winners Niels Bohr could not explain explosive fission and Manne Siegbahn told me 1964 to avoid physics as a career (to avoid being asked building Swedish a-bombs).
So I became a shipbuilder and arrived in Japan 1972 and met people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki that told me that their towns were burnt down by napalm 1945. No a-bombs! They returned quickly and rebuilt their towns. They also built fake peace a-bomb museums.
Then I met Elke 1999 whose father told me he had worked for Wismut AG in Saxony, East Germany, 1948/58 producing the Uranium for the fake Stalin a-bomb (not) exploding 1949 in a remote area anywhere.
Elke’s parents disappeared 1958 and Elke thought they were dead but, magic, Elke’s parents had escaped to the West and they could be reunited after three years.
Elke and I 2001 bought a house at Freiberg i.Sa, vicinity of which where Wismut AG had its Uranium mines. It took me 15 years to understand that there were no Uranium mines in Saxony! It was all KGB propaganda (that is still effective today). A hoax. And today I think Elke’s father assisted the Stalin & KGB with it. He was not a real German but from Upper Silesia that never liked Germans. Something went wrong 1958 – East German security police mishandled the business, etc. It is a pity that German (or US or Russian) media isn’t interested in the story. German tax payers are today paying a fortune to clean up the Saxon Wismut AG Uranium mines … that never produced any Uranium ever.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 09, 2020, 08:57:16 PM
Yes, yes.  Nice story that you've told several times already.  Too bad it has nothing to do with any of the questions that I asked.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 09, 2020, 10:31:31 PM
Yes, yes.  Nice story that you've told several times already.  Too bad it has nothing to do with any of the questions that I asked.
So the questions were:
1. What makes you think that nuclear bombs haven't been peer reviewed?
2. Why would you want weapons of mass destruction to be freely available? 
3. Are you a terrorist?
Answers :
1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.
2. I prefer conventional weapons of self defense. My weapon was the sea mine blowing up enemy ships trying to invade Sweden. I think it is scrapped today.
3. Yes, according to certain US and Japanese laws they think so. Actually I am a nice guy.

Re Niels Bohr he was apparently smuggled out of Nazi-occupied Denmark summer 1942 and suddenly stayed at my grandparents house outside Stockholm in neutral Sweden. Then he disappeared but left a trunk in the guest room. Three years later Bohr reappeared. He had been part of the Manhattan project at Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA, where he also learnt skiing. His bombs had killed 100 000's of Japanese civilians 1945 and he was not really popular. Physicists should not design weapons mass murder. And Niels Bohr could not tell how his bombs detonated or ignited. I think his friend Manne Siegbahn knew the bombs were fake but he was encouraged not to speak about it. Manne was already rich after having won the Nobel Prize 1923 but he got an extra US$ 1 million from the Rockefeller foundation 1946 to improve the cyclotron in his private laboratory at Stockholm, where he created new atoms, etc. Nuclear physics, you know.
The forgotten trunk in the guest room? Guess, what happened to it!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 10, 2020, 05:23:24 AM
Yes, yes.  Nice story that you've told several times already.  Too bad it has nothing to do with any of the questions that I asked.
Physicists should not design weapons mass murder.
Probably nobody should design weapons of war because so many involve mass "murder".

Quote
Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945)
On the night of 9/10 March 1945, the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) conducted a devastating firebombing raid on Tokyo, the Japanese capital city. This attack was code-named Operation Meetinghouse by the USAAF and is known as the Great Tokyo Air Raid in Japan.[1] Bombs dropped from 279 Boeing B-29 Superfortress heavy bombers burned out much of eastern Tokyo. More than 90,000 and possibly over 100,000 Japanese people were killed, mostly civilians, and one million were left homeless, making it the most destructive single air attack of World War II. The Japanese air and civil defenses proved largely inadequate; 14 American aircraft and 96 airmen were lost.

The attack on Tokyo was an intensification of the air raids on Japan which had begun in June 1944. Prior to this operation, the USAAF had focused on a precision bombing campaign against Japanese industrial facilities. These attacks were generally unsuccessful, which contributed to the decision to shift to firebombing. The operation during the early hours of 10 March was the first major firebombing raid against a Japanese city, and the USAAF units employed significantly different tactics from those used in precision raids, including bombing by night with the aircraft flying at low altitudes. The extensive destruction caused by the raid led to these tactics becoming standard for the USAAF's B-29s until the end of the war.
There were no nuclear weapons involved in the bombing of Tokyo. Japan could have surrendered earlier, before that carpet bombing but they refused!

And
Quote
World War II casualties
World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. An estimated total of 70–85 million people perished,[1] which was about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion).

More than half of the total number of casualties are accounted for by the dead of the Republic of China and of the Soviet Union. The government of the Russian Federation in the 1990s published an estimate of USSR losses at 26.6 million,[3][4] including 8 to 9 million due to famine and disease.[4][5][6] These losses are for the territory of the USSR in the borders of 1946–1991, including territories annexed in 1939–40.

The People's Republic of China as of 2005 estimated the number of Chinese casualties in the Second Sino-Japanese War from 1937 to 1945 are 20 million dead and 15 million wounded.[7]

In 2000, the total number of German military dead was estimated at 5.3 million by Rüdiger Overmans of the Military History Research Office (Germany); this number includes 900,000 men conscripted from outside of Germany's 1937 borders, in Austria, and in east-central Europe. Civilian deaths are not included.[8][9][10] However, in 2005 the German government put the war dead at 7,395,000 persons (including 4,300,000 military dead and missing) from Germany, Austria, and men conscripted from outside of Germany's 1937 borders.

There were no nuclear weapons involved in those millions of casualties - dead is dead however you die and war is hell!



Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: frenat on May 10, 2020, 05:33:19 AM
Yes, yes.  Nice story that you've told several times already.  Too bad it has nothing to do with any of the questions that I asked.

he often does that. That is why some think he is a bot.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on May 10, 2020, 05:36:54 AM
Yes, yes.  Nice story that you've told several times already.  Too bad it has nothing to do with any of the questions that I asked.

he often does that. That is why some think he is a bot.

He is a wealthy man, living the high life in France. He is also not bothered about a nuclear apocalypse because he knows the threat is fake so lives in bliss. You're just jealous
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: frenat on May 10, 2020, 10:25:11 AM
Yes, yes.  Nice story that you've told several times already.  Too bad it has nothing to do with any of the questions that I asked.

he often does that. That is why some think he is a bot.

He is a wealthy man, living the high life in France. He is also not bothered about a nuclear apocalypse because he knows the threat is fake so lives in bliss. You're just jealous
Nope. Just stating facts. He has been accused of being a bot multiple times before. The fact that he often ignores direct question replying with non sequiturs just lends credence to that theory. He's got nothing that I would be jealous of. Great for humor though!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 10, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.
The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 10, 2020, 03:23:35 PM
1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.
The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.
Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review! http://heiwaco.com/fabomb.htm
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Stash on May 10, 2020, 03:43:45 PM
1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.
The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.
Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review! http://heiwaco.com/fabomb.htm

Sure there was peer review. Pretty much every nuclear nation in the world condemned it. Doesn't get more peer reviewed than that.

Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 10, 2020, 08:38:07 PM
1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.
The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.
Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review! http://heiwaco.com/fabomb.htm

Sure there was peer review. Pretty much every nuclear nation in the world condemned it. Doesn't get more peer reviewed than that.


Thanks for the link. It has nothing to do with peer review. It was just glorious French Fake News to maintain the honor of the republic 1960 becoming a nuclear armed super power.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: MouseWalker on May 10, 2020, 10:17:30 PM
1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.
The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.
Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review! http://heiwaco.com/fabomb.htm

Sure there was peer review. Pretty much every nuclear nation in the world condemned it. Doesn't get more peer reviewed than that.


Thanks for the link. It has nothing to do with peer review. It was just glorious French Fake News to maintain the honor of the republic 1960 becoming a nuclear armed super power.
Sow it did happen; nuclear weapons do work.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 11, 2020, 01:44:48 AM
1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.
The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.
Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review! http://heiwaco.com/fabomb.htm

Sure there was peer review. Pretty much every nuclear nation in the world condemned it. Doesn't get more peer reviewed than that.


Thanks for the link. It has nothing to do with peer review. It was just glorious French Fake News to maintain the honor of the republic 1960 becoming a nuclear armed super power.
Sow it did happen; nuclear weapons do work.
No, it was just a French Fake News show back in 1960. http://heiwaco.com/fabomb.htm explains it all.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 11, 2020, 03:03:37 AM
No, it was just a French Fake News show back in 1960.
And http://heiwaco.com/fabomb.htm tells many more lies about that.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 11, 2020, 06:21:09 AM
1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.
The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.
Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review!
How do you define peer review?  If one country builds an atomic bomb and then other countries build similar atomic bombs, then that sounds like peer review to me.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 11, 2020, 06:55:22 AM
1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.
The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.
Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review!
How do you define peer review?  If one country builds an atomic bomb and then other countries build similar atomic bombs, then that sounds like peer review to me.
No, it is just copy paste of a fake bomb with another fake bomb.
"Peer review is one of the gold standards of science. It’s a process where scientists (“peers”) evaluate the quality of other scientists’ work. By doing this, they aim to ensure the work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and adds to what we already knew."
So no secrecy for national security reasons, please. And Nobel prize winner physics Niels Bohr could never explain what 'explosive fission' was and how to start and demonstrate it in a laboratory when he returned to Europe 1945.
We all knew what fission was - splitting of atoms under controlled conditions - but explosive fission was new. And pure Fake News!
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sokarul on May 11, 2020, 06:58:31 AM
You are confusing what is peer reviewed.

Nobody peer reviewed the 2020 Chevrolet Corvette. That doesn’t mean the internal combustion engine doesn’t work.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on May 11, 2020, 07:06:40 AM
You are confusing what is peer reviewed.

Nobody peer reviewed the 2020 Chevrolet Corvette. That doesn’t mean the internal combustion engine doesn’t work.

If no one looks under the bonnet, there is no guarantee there is even an engine inside
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Stash on May 11, 2020, 10:10:29 AM
You are confusing what is peer reviewed.

Nobody peer reviewed the 2020 Chevrolet Corvette. That doesn’t mean the internal combustion engine doesn’t work.

If no one looks under the bonnet, there is no guarantee there is even an engine inside

Hard to test drive a new corvette if it doesn't have an engine. No need to look under the bonnet.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Stash on May 11, 2020, 10:13:51 AM
1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.
The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.
Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review! http://heiwaco.com/fabomb.htm

Sure there was peer review. Pretty much every nuclear nation in the world condemned it. Doesn't get more peer reviewed than that.


Thanks for the link. It has nothing to do with peer review. It was just glorious French Fake News to maintain the honor of the republic 1960 becoming a nuclear armed super power.

There's no evidence that it was fake. There's no evidence on your site either. Just you stating, "It was fake!" That's not evidence.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 11, 2020, 12:05:15 PM
1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.
The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.
Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review!
How do you define peer review?  If one country builds an atomic bomb and then other countries build similar atomic bombs, then that sounds like peer review to me.
No, it is just copy paste of a fake bomb with another fake bomb.
Have you ever looked for peer reviewed articles concerning atomic bombs?  I did a quick Google search for "atomic bomb peer reviewed articles" and found plenty.  Who knows, maybe all of the peer reviews are fake too.

"Peer review is one of the gold standards of science. It’s a process where scientists (“peers”) evaluate the quality of other scientists’ work. By doing this, they aim to ensure the work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and adds to what we already knew."
So no secrecy for national security reasons, please.
Nuclear physics is a well established, peer reviewed science and the basic principles of supercritical chain reactions are well known. The biggest secrets are those dealing with the technical challenges of reaching and maintaining that supercritical state.

And Nobel prize winner physics Niels Bohr could never explain what 'explosive fission' was and how to start and demonstrate it in a laboratory when he returned to Europe 1945.
Probably because he knew that it was still top secret information that was best not disclosed.

We all knew what fission was - splitting of atoms under controlled conditions - but explosive fission was new. And pure Fake News!
Everything is "Fake News!", until it isn't.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 11, 2020, 06:55:03 PM
1 . All is military top secret for national security reasons since 1945 = no peer review ever.
The fact that a number of other countries have developed their own nuclear weapons sounds like peer review to me.
Well, when France developed its atomic and hydrogen bombs in the 1960's, there was no peer review!
How do you define peer review?  If one country builds an atomic bomb and then other countries build similar atomic bombs, then that sounds like peer review to me.
No, it is just copy paste of a fake bomb with another fake bomb.
Have you ever looked for peer reviewed articles concerning atomic bombs?  I did a quick Google search for "atomic bomb peer reviewed articles" and found plenty.  Who knows, maybe all of the peer reviews are fake too.

"Peer review is one of the gold standards of science. It’s a process where scientists (“peers”) evaluate the quality of other scientists’ work. By doing this, they aim to ensure the work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and adds to what we already knew."
So no secrecy for national security reasons, please.
Nuclear physics is a well established, peer reviewed science and the basic principles of supercritical chain reactions are well known. The biggest secrets are those dealing with the technical challenges of reaching and maintaining that supercritical state.

And Nobel prize winner physics Niels Bohr could never explain what 'explosive fission' was and how to start and demonstrate it in a laboratory when he returned to Europe 1945.
Probably because he knew that it was still top secret information that was best not disclosed.

We all knew what fission was - splitting of atoms under controlled conditions - but explosive fission was new. And pure Fake News!
Everything is "Fake News!", until it isn't.
I haven't found any peer reviewed scientific paper about 'explosive fission', i.e. that two sub-critical (LOL) masses of fissionable metals are suddenly brought in contact to become one critical mass, that explodes, ignited by a free neutron in between
Fission is not explosive! Niels Bohr could never explain the contrary.
What convinced me that Nuclear Bombs do not exist is of course the fact that the gangster Stalin copied the concept in no time - without peer review! Stalin is famous for pseudo-science. He just murdered any scientist not agreeing with him! I understand the professors at the Bergakademi at Freiberg i.Sa. that agreed 1945 that Saxon pechblende could be used to make an a-bomb.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 11, 2020, 08:02:50 PM
I haven't found any peer reviewed scientific paper about 'explosive fission', i.e. that two sub-critical (LOL) masses of fissionable metals are suddenly brought in contact to become one critical mass, that explodes, ignited by a free neutron in between
Fission is not explosive!
Possibly because, as you say, all you'll get if you do that is runaway nuclear fission, not a detonation.

Quote from: Heiwa
Niels Bohr could never explain the contrary.
Why would Niels Bohr reveal what were probably still nuclear secrets to a blabbermouth like you?

But now do we know a bit about it:
Quote from: Alex Wellerstein
The Nuclear Secrecy Blog: What did Bohr do at Los Alamos? (http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/05/11/bohr-at-los-alamos/)
In fact, Bohr did work on the bomb. And not just on esoteric aspects of the physics, either; one of his role was concerned with the very heart of the “Gadget.”
One of the key parts of the implosion design for the atomic bomb (the same sort of bomb detonated at Trinity and over Nagasaki) is the neutron initiator that sits at the absolute center of the device. It is a deceptively tricky little contraption. At the instance of maximum compression, it needs to send out a small burst of neutrons, to get the whole chain reaction started. It’s not even that many neutrons, objectively speaking — on the order of a hundred or so in the first bombs. But conjuring up a hundred neutrons, at the center of an imploding nuclear assembly, at just the right moment, was a tricky technical problem, apparently.

The details are still classified-enough that figuring out exactly what the nature of the problem it proves a little tough in retrospect.
Quote from: Heiwa
What convinced me that Nuclear Bombs do not exist is of course the fact that the gangster Stalin copied the concept in no time - without peer review! Stalin is famous for pseudo-science. He just murdered any scientist not agreeing with him!
Who cares what Stalin did or didn't say?
He probably lied more than you state false information out of sheer ignorance.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 11, 2020, 11:22:53 PM
What did the Manhattan project pseudo-scientists incl. Niels Bohr and some communist spies with FBI looking on do at Los Alamos 1942/5? I assume they had to create a fake a-bomb between drinking, fucking, skiing, etc, so they came up with explosive fission, critical masses and  similar nonsense.
Runaway fission? No, it takes some nano-seconds to ignite an a-bomb at the speed of light observed by a FLASH. Neutron initiator? ROTFL.
Anyway, All became classified, nuclear secrets without any peer review 1945.
Stalin? Uncle Joe! Franklin D Roosevelt loved him. But those were the days.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Stash on May 11, 2020, 11:43:33 PM
What did the Manhattan project pseudo-scientists incl. Niels Bohr and some communist spies with FBI looking on do at Los Alamos 1942/5? I assume they had to create a fake a-bomb between drinking, fucking, skiing, etc, so they came up with explosive fission, critical masses and  similar nonsense.
Runaway fission? No, it takes some nano-seconds to ignite an a-bomb at the speed of light observed by a FLASH. Neutron initiator? ROTFL.
Anyway, All became classified, nuclear secrets without any peer review 1945.
Stalin? Uncle Joe! Franklin D Roosevelt loved him. But those were the days.

Are you angry about something? Because here again, you spew out a bunch of vitriol, but none of it speaks to evidence. Do you have any evidence? None exists on your site.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 01:47:03 AM
What did the Manhattan project pseudo-scientists incl. Niels Bohr and some communist spies with FBI looking on do at Los Alamos 1942/5? I assume they had to create a fake a-bomb between drinking, fucking, skiing, etc, so they came up with explosive fission, critical masses and  similar nonsense.
Runaway fission? No, it takes some nano-seconds to ignite an a-bomb at the speed of light observed by a FLASH. Neutron initiator? ROTFL.
Anyway, All became classified, nuclear secrets without any peer review 1945.
Stalin? Uncle Joe! Franklin D Roosevelt loved him. But those were the days.

Are you angry about something? Because here again, you spew out a bunch of vitriol, but none of it speaks to evidence. Do you have any evidence? None exists on your site.
I am not angry. No reason to be angry. I enjoy publishing my proven findings at my website and at social fora and I also pay anyone €1M when shown that I am wrong.
My principal objective today is only that nuclear bombs are officially declared a hoax created back in 1945, so we can all relax not being killed by nuclear weapons. I cannot understand why presidents like Trump, Putin and Macron cannot do it. Or this clown Kim.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 12, 2020, 06:25:09 AM
What convinced me that Nuclear Bombs do not exist is of course the fact that the gangster Stalin copied the concept in no time - without peer review!
Actually, Stalin had at least 2 spies working on the Manhattan Project, so they were able to peer review and then reproduce the bomb relatively quickly.
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1942-1945/espionage.htm
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 08:34:06 AM
What convinced me that Nuclear Bombs do not exist is of course the fact that the gangster Stalin copied the concept in no time - without peer review!
Actually, Stalin had at least 2 spies working on the Manhattan Project, so they were able to peer review and then reproduce the bomb relatively quickly.
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1942-1945/espionage.htm
Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax. And don't forget the two Rosenberg Americans that were executed (or probably given new identities) for having helped them. What a soap opera. Thanks for the ridiculous link and the photo of the Stalin (fake) a-bomb explosion August 29, 1949. Where did the black smoke come from?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 12, 2020, 09:58:41 AM
Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.
How do you know what those spies told Stalin?  Were you spying on Stalin's spies?

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on May 12, 2020, 10:21:29 AM
Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.
How do you know what those spies told Stalin?  Were you spying on Stalin's spies?

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?

I think he wants to nuke sweden for not agreeing with his view of the M/S Estonia.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 12:49:32 PM
Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.
How do you know what those spies told Stalin?  Were you spying on Stalin's spies?

Well, to make a fake a-bomb Stalin needed fake Uranium ore. Where? Erzgebirge, Saxony. Easy! Wismut AG! Aue, Annaberg, Chemnitz, etc. Produced fake Uranium 1945-1990.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 12:53:42 PM
Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?
? I wasn't born when Sweden's government asked Manne Siegbahn to make a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Manne said that he would do it but everything must be public and peer reviewed, etc. I explain it at my website.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 12, 2020, 03:02:20 PM
Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?
? I wasn't born when Sweden's government asked Manne Siegbahn to make a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Manne said that he would do it but everything must be public and peer reviewed, etc. I explain it at my website.
Why would a public and peer reviewed atomic bomb be a good idea? ???
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 05:46:57 PM
Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?
? I wasn't born when Sweden's government asked Manne Siegbahn to make a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Manne said that he would do it but everything must be public and peer reviewed, etc. I explain it at my website.
Why would a public and peer reviewed atomic bomb be a good idea? ???
To establish that it exist. But all atomic bombs are cheap propaganda and Fake News. They are not real.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 12, 2020, 07:30:28 PM
Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?
? I wasn't born when Sweden's government asked Manne Siegbahn to make a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Manne said that he would do it but everything must be public and peer reviewed, etc. I explain it at my website.
Why would a public and peer reviewed atomic bomb be a good idea? ???
To establish that it exist.
Peer review would do no more that help establish that the theory was sound but eye-witness accounts of the actual nuclear explosions might be better evidence.

Eyewitness account of Hiroshima bombing
               
Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Survivor Tells Her Story

Quote from: Father John A. Siemes
Eyewitness Account of Hiroshima (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Hiroshima/Hiroshima_Siemes.shtml)
Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosophy at Tokyo's Catholic University, Hiroshima- August 6th, 1945
Up to August 6th, occasional bombs, which did no great damage, had fallen on Hiroshima. Many cities roundabout, one after the other, were destroyed, but Hiroshima itself remained protected. There were almost daily observation planes over the city but none of them dropped a bomb. The citizens wondered why they alone had remained undisturbed for so long a time. There were fantastic rumors that the enemy had something special in mind for this city, but no one dreamed that the end would come in such a fashion as on the morning of August 6th.
<< The rest at the linked site. >>
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: markjo on May 12, 2020, 07:42:56 PM
Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?
? I wasn't born when Sweden's government asked Manne Siegbahn to make a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Manne said that he would do it but everything must be public and peer reviewed, etc. I explain it at my website.
Why would a public and peer reviewed atomic bomb be a good idea? ???
To establish that it exist. But all atomic bombs are cheap propaganda and Fake News. They are not real.
I would think that a simple demonstration would be enough to establish that something exists.  After all, there are many things that exist that are not public or peer reviewed for any number of good reasons.  For example, keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists comes to mind.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 12, 2020, 11:33:16 PM
Well, the two Stalin spies just told Stalin that the whole Manhattan thing was a hoax.

Also, why are you so obsessed with learning how to make your own atomic bomb?  What possible good could come of it?
? I wasn't born when Sweden's government asked Manne Siegbahn to make a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Manne said that he would do it but everything must be public and peer reviewed, etc. I explain it at my website.
Why would a public and peer reviewed atomic bomb be a good idea? ???
To establish that it exist. But all atomic bombs are cheap propaganda and Fake News. They are not real.
I would think that a simple demonstration would be enough to establish that something exists.  After all, there are many things that exist that are not public or peer reviewed for any number of good reasons.  For example, keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists comes to mind.
I fully agree. Small scale tests in a laboratory is a good scientific way to demonstrate things. But what things exist and cannot be public for good reasons?
Re terrorists - it seems they can buy/steal/obtain any weapons they like on the market today. But why would they go for nukes? Only complete idiots come up with such crazy ideas.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 13, 2020, 12:17:02 AM
I would think that a simple demonstration would be enough to establish that something exists.  After all, there are many things that exist that are not public or peer reviewed for any number of good reasons.  For example, keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists comes to mind.
I fully agree. Small scale tests in a laboratory is a good scientific way to demonstrate things.
But there are quite a number of things that cannot, at least at present, be demonstrated as "Small scale tests in a laboratory".
For example:
But being unable to demonstrate something on a small scale in a laboratory is no reason to doubt their existence.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 13, 2020, 01:34:11 AM
I would think that a simple demonstration would be enough to establish that something exists.  After all, there are many things that exist that are not public or peer reviewed for any number of good reasons.  For example, keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists comes to mind.
I fully agree. Small scale tests in a laboratory is a good scientific way to demonstrate things.
But there are quite a number of things that cannot, at least at present, be demonstrated as "Small scale tests in a laboratory".
For example:
  • The type of fusion process that generates the prodigious energy of the Sun.

  • Nuclear fission and fusion explosions.

  • A convincing gravitation demonstration of the Moon orbiting the Earth while the Earth orbits the Sun.
But being unable to demonstrate something on a small scale in a laboratory is no reason to doubt their existence.
I agree.
1. Sun fusion cannot be tested on Earth. Plenty money has been spent to prove the contrary, e.g. down the road from me. I describe it at my website. They are still at it. First fusion is planned 2050!
2. Nuclear fission and fusion explosions are just Fake News to confuse people. I pay anyone €1M if proven wrong. Just visit my website.
3. Looking out of my window I can see the Moon orbiting Earth, while Earth orbits the Sun. You don't have to visit my website for it.
Thanks for your post.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 13, 2020, 02:48:59 AM
I would think that a simple demonstration would be enough to establish that something exists.  After all, there are many things that exist that are not public or peer reviewed for any number of good reasons.  For example, keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists comes to mind.
I fully agree. Small scale tests in a laboratory is a good scientific way to demonstrate things.
But there are quite a number of things that cannot, at least at present, be demonstrated as "Small scale tests in a laboratory".
For example:
  • The type of fusion process that generates the prodigious energy of the Sun.

  • Nuclear fission and fusion explosions.

  • A convincing gravitation demonstration of the Moon orbiting the Earth while the Earth orbits the Sun.
But being unable to demonstrate something on a small scale in a laboratory is no reason to doubt their existence.
I agree.
1. Sun fusion cannot be tested on Earth. Plenty money has been spent to prove the contrary, e.g. down the road from me. I describe it at my website. They are still at it. First fusion is planned 2050!
Nobody is even trying to emulate the "type of fusion process that generates the prodigious energy of the Sun."
In the core of the Sun "The temperature is 15.6 million Kelvin and the pressure is 250 billion atmospheres".
This can support the proton-proton fusion reaction but that pressure is so far not achievable on Earth so a deterium-tritium reaction is used but it has the disadvantage that most of the energy is released as neutrons.

Quote from: Heiwa
2. Nuclear fission and fusion explosions are just Fake News to confuse people.
No, it's more like "your website is just Fake News to confuse people."

Quote from: Heiwa
3. Looking out of my window I can see the Moon orbiting Earth, while Earth orbits the Sun. You don't have to visit my website for it.
Thanks for your post.
How does that prove that the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun?
Flat Earthers claim that both the Sun and Moon circle about 5000 km above the Earth.
How do you prove thst they don't?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on May 13, 2020, 02:49:23 AM
Well if atomic bombs did exist and were detonated, our entire atmosphere would have fused and ignited in a nuclear hellfire killing everything on Earth

Given we are here and breathing, that is pretty solid evidence that nuclear bombs are fake news
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 13, 2020, 03:07:06 AM
Well if atomic bombs did exist and were detonated, our entire atmosphere would have fused and ignited in a nuclear hellfire killing everything on Earth
Why? Please post some evidence.
Oxygen and nitrogen won't burn in a chemical reaction  an even the temperature in the core of the Sun is not enough to fuse nitrogen and oxygen to make heavier elements.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on May 13, 2020, 03:33:30 AM
Well if atomic bombs did exist and were detonated, our entire atmosphere would have fused and ignited in a nuclear hellfire killing everything on Earth
Why? Please post some evidence.
Oxygen and nitrogen won't burn in a chemical reaction  an even the temperature in the core of the Sun is not enough to fuse nitrogen and oxygen to make heavier elements.

The core of a star is cold compared to what they have said a nuclear explosion is capable of doing which is hundreds of millions of degrees. That is more than enough to cause a cascade reaction in igniting the atmosphere. This concern was the reason the Manhatten project was dumped.

Of course as history records, they completed the project and dropped them over Japan. Then the world got batshit crazy and 'tested' thousands of detonations over the decades. What nonsense.

The destruction of Japan could be achieved with 'conventional' bombs far cheaper. If you test the background radiation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, it is the same as where you probably are. Given the half life of the nuclear materials being in the hundreds or many thousands of years, this is impossible if they had an atomic bomb dropped on them only 75 years ago

Or take a look at Chernobyl. Flora and fauna are flourishing.

Fukushima? Animals are probably happy now that humans are no longer there
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sokarul on May 13, 2020, 03:59:14 AM
The atmosphere catching on fire was an old idea. It clearly didn’t happen.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on May 13, 2020, 04:18:18 AM
It clearly didn’t happen.

Yes. That's what I said.

See rab, even sokarul agrees  ;D
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: sokarul on May 13, 2020, 04:26:24 AM
Your argument is the old one. It’s not original. The atmosphere did not ignite from any nuclear bomb tests or the two used in battle.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: JJA on May 13, 2020, 04:42:28 AM
Well if atomic bombs did exist and were detonated, our entire atmosphere would have fused and ignited in a nuclear hellfire killing everything on Earth

Given we are here and breathing, that is pretty solid evidence that nuclear bombs are fake news

I'm curious. You don't believe in nuclear bombs.

Do you believe in any kind of nuclear reactions? Fission? Fusion? Is radiation real? Is uranium real?

At what point do you draw a line and call nukes Fake News, and on the other side, accept reality?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on May 13, 2020, 05:01:55 AM
Your argument is the old one. It’s not original. The atmosphere did not ignite from any nuclear bomb tests or the two used in battle.

I never claimed I was the the original author of the argument. Geeks more intelligent and versed in science than you or rab told of the impending doom to all mankind should a nuclear bomb ignite in our atmosphere.

So it was shelved

But never let a good crisis go to waste. Fake news could instill fear and compliance among people without the need to destroy the Earth.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 13, 2020, 05:05:15 AM
Well if atomic bombs did exist and were detonated, our entire atmosphere would have fused and ignited in a nuclear hellfire killing everything on Earth
Why? Please post some evidence.
Oxygen and nitrogen won't burn in a chemical reaction  an even the temperature in the core of the Sun is not enough to fuse nitrogen and oxygen to make heavier elements.

The core of a star is cold compared to what they have said a nuclear explosion is capable of doing which is hundreds of millions of degrees. That is more than enough to cause a cascade reaction in igniting the atmosphere.
Nope! Not going to happen by a long shot.
The temperature in a fission explosion is about 100 million degrees Celsius.
The temperature to fuse carbon into nitrogen and oxygen is around 600 million degrees Celsius.
Quote
MASSIVE STARS
Once massive stars reach the red giant phase, the core temperature continues to increase as carbon atoms are formed from the fusion of helium atoms. Gravity continues to pull together the carbon atoms in the core until the temperature reaches 600,000,000 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, carbon atoms form heavy elements such as oxygen and nitrogen.

Then
Quote
At temperatures between 5 × 108 K and 109 K, pairs of carbon and oxygen nuclei can fuse to produce such elements as magnesium, sodium, silicon, and sulfur.

Where do you drag all your fiction from?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on May 13, 2020, 05:09:02 AM
Well if atomic bombs did exist and were detonated, our entire atmosphere would have fused and ignited in a nuclear hellfire killing everything on Earth

Given we are here and breathing, that is pretty solid evidence that nuclear bombs are fake news

I'm curious. You don't believe in nuclear bombs.

Do you believe in any kind of nuclear reactions? Fission? Fusion? Is radiation real? Is uranium real?

At what point do you draw a line and call nukes Fake News, and on the other side, accept reality?

I'm with Heiwa in that I don't believe the bombs exist. But that in no way says they are in the realm of impossibility

You seem arrogant in that you believe mankind is at the zenith of all knowledge. As in, if we dont know something today, it must not be possible.

Why do you think a disbelief in nuclear bombs must equal a disbelief in radiation or uranium?

Personally, a nuclear bomb as advertised (ie not ignite the Earths atmosphere) is still a costly an inefficient means of destruction. You can achieve far more damage with cyber warfare. Or an antimatter bomb
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 13, 2020, 05:35:33 AM
Your argument is the old one. It’s not original. The atmosphere did not ignite from any nuclear bomb tests or the two used in battle.

I never claimed I was the the original author of the argument. Geeks more intelligent and versed in science than you or rab told of the impending doom to all mankind should a nuclear bomb ignite in our atmosphere.
And who are these faceless unnamed Geeks? I didn't post my "intelligence" but you just spouted old baseless fears.

I suggest that the very people that designed the weapons might be the ones to best answer that M
Furphy.

And here's what they said, pretty near in full.
Quote from: John Horgan
Bethe, Teller, Trinity and the End of Earth (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/bethe-teller-trinity-and-the-end-of-earth/)

A leader of the Manhattan Project recalls a discussion of whether the Trinity test would ignite Earth's atmosphere and destroy the planet


Well, I’ll let Bethe tell the story in his own words. Here is an exact transcript of my interview with him, which took place at his home in Ithaca, New York.

Horgan: I wonder if you could tell me a little bit about the story of Teller's suggestion that the atomic bomb might ignite the atmosphere around the Earth.

Bethe: It is such absolute nonsense [laughter], and the public has been interested in it… And possibly it would be good to kill it once more. So one day at Berkeley -- we were a very small group, maybe eight physicists or so -- one day Teller came to the office and said, "Well, what would happen to the air if an atomic bomb were exploded in the air?"  The original idea about the hydrogen bomb was that one would explode an atomic bomb and then simply the heat from the atomic bomb would ignite a large vessel of deuterium… and make it react.  So Teller said, "Well, how about the air?  There's nitrogen in the air, and you can have a nuclear reaction in which two nitrogen nuclei collide and become oxygen plus carbon, and in this process you set free a lot of energy.  Couldn't that happen?"  And that caused great excitement.

Horgan: This is in ‘42?

Bethe: '42. Oppenheimer [soon to be appointed head of Los Alamos Laboratory] got quite excited and said, "That's a terrible possibility," and he went to his superior, who was Arthur Compton, the director of the Chicago Laboratory, and told him that.  Well, I sat down and looked at the problem, about whether two nitrogen nuclei could penetrate each other and make that nuclear reaction, and I found that it was just incredibly unlikely.  And I said so, and I think Teller was very quickly convinced and so was Oppenheimer when he'd returned from seeing Compton.  Later on we found out that it is very difficult to ignite deuterium by an atomic bomb, and liquid deuterium, which is much easier to ignite than the gas, but at the time in '42 we thought it might be very easy to ignite liquid deuterium.  Well, Teller, I think he has to be much commended for that.  Teller at Los Alamos put a very good calculator on this problem, [Emil] Konopinski, who was an expert on weak interactors, and Konopinski together with [inaudible] showed that it was incredibly impossible to set the hydrogen, to set the atmosphere on fire.  They wrote one or two very good papers on it, and that put the question really at rest.  They showed in great detail why it is impossible.  But, of course, it spooked [Compton].  Well, let me first say one other thing:  Fermi, of course, didn't believe that this was possible, but just to relieve the tension at the Los Alamos [Trinity] test [on July 16, 1945], he said, "Now, let's make a bet whether the atmosphere will be set on fire by this test." [laughter] And I think maybe a few people took that bet.  But, for instance, in Compton's mind it was not set to rest.  He didn't see my calculations.  He even less saw Konopinski’s much better calculations, so it was still spooking in his mind when he gave an interview at some point, and so it got into the open literature, and people are still excited about it.

Horgan: When did Compton give his interview?

Bethe: After the War.  I don’t know precisely when.  Maybe, I don't know, '47, '48. Some such time. [The date was 1959. See Addendum.] And that got other people excited, and there was one exchange of letters in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, but by then of course it was absolutely clear, and it was absolutely clear before the Los Alamos test that nothing like that would happen. In this form, I think I have no objection to your writing it.

Horgan: I think what makes it such a fascinating episode… is the idea of doing a calculation on which possibly could rest the fate of the world. [laughter]

Bethe: Right, right.

Horgan: That's obviously an extraordinary kind of calculation to do. Did you have any...  Did you even think about that issue when you saw the Trinity test?

Bethe: No.

Horgan: You were absolutely--

Bethe: Yes.

Horgan: -- completely certain.

Bethe: Yes. The one thing in my mind was that maybe the initiator would not work because I had a lot to do with its design, and that the whole thing would be a fizzle because the initiator wasn't working.  No, it never occurred to me that it would set the atmosphere on fire.

Horgan: In a way, this is like a great test of one's belief --

Bethe: In science. [laughter]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buck had “completely misunderstood” Compton and that there was “no chance whatever” that an atomic blast would “ignite the atmosphere.”

Bethe concludes his piece with comments relevant to my recent posts (see below) on whether our fears of nuclear weapons are excessive:

There are many excellent reasons against nuclear war, and these are well known to our statesmen as well as to our scientists. On this one point, I can agree with Dudley; there must not be nuclear war. But it is totally unnecessary to add to the many good reasons against nuclear war one which simply is not true.”


Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: rabinoz on May 13, 2020, 05:43:02 AM
Personally, a nuclear bomb as advertised (ie not ignite the Earths atmosphere) is still a costly an inefficient means of destruction. You can achieve far more damage with cyber warfare. Or an antimatter bomb
Except that neither "cyber warfare nor an antimatter bomb" were possibilities in the 1940s and fission weapons were.

Even now an "an antimatter bomb" is hardly a possibility and would be hideously expense if it were but I doubt that anyone is even planning one.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on May 13, 2020, 06:19:12 AM
Bethe sounds like a paid shill. Pay no mind to his words
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Heiwa on May 13, 2020, 07:20:57 AM
Quote from: Heiwa
3. Looking out of my window I can see the Moon orbiting Earth, while Earth orbits the Sun. You don't have to visit my website for it.
Thanks for your post.
How does that prove that the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun?
Flat Earthers claim that both the Sun and Moon circle about 5000 km above the Earth.
How do you prove that they don't?
I just look out of the window. I see the Moon orbiting Earth with the Sun shining on it. Then I see the Sun rise in the morning at the horizon and set in the evening behind some mountains. Using a calendar and clock Earth orbits the Sun in a year and the Moon orbits Earth in 28 days.
Using same thinking I can show that nuclear bombs do not exist.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: JJA on May 13, 2020, 07:38:30 AM
I'm curious. You don't believe in nuclear bombs.

Do you believe in any kind of nuclear reactions? Fission? Fusion? Is radiation real? Is uranium real?

At what point do you draw a line and call nukes Fake News, and on the other side, accept reality?

I'm with Heiwa in that I don't believe the bombs exist. But that in no way says they are in the realm of impossibility

You seem arrogant in that you believe mankind is at the zenith of all knowledge. As in, if we dont know something today, it must not be possible.

Why do you think a disbelief in nuclear bombs must equal a disbelief in radiation or uranium?

Personally, a nuclear bomb as advertised (ie not ignite the Earths atmosphere) is still a costly an inefficient means of destruction. You can achieve far more damage with cyber warfare. Or an antimatter bomb

That's what's confusing.  You say you don't believe nuclear bombs can exist, but believe nuclear fusion is real?

Plutonium exists.
Plutonium is radioactive.
Small amounts release heat.
Larger amounts release more heat.
A big enough pile will release enough radiation to kill you.
Throw enough together and you get an explosion. (Look up Demon Core and 
Throw even more together fast enough and get a bigger explosion.

Somewhere in that list you have decided the lies start. Why? Are nuclear power plants lies? How do you decide?
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: Shifter on May 13, 2020, 08:02:19 AM
I'm curious. You don't believe in nuclear bombs.

Do you believe in any kind of nuclear reactions? Fission? Fusion? Is radiation real? Is uranium real?

At what point do you draw a line and call nukes Fake News, and on the other side, accept reality?

I'm with Heiwa in that I don't believe the bombs exist. But that in no way says they are in the realm of impossibility

You seem arrogant in that you believe mankind is at the zenith of all knowledge. As in, if we dont know something today, it must not be possible.

Why do you think a disbelief in nuclear bombs must equal a disbelief in radiation or uranium?

Personally, a nuclear bomb as advertised (ie not ignite the Earths atmosphere) is still a costly an inefficient means of destruction. You can achieve far more damage with cyber warfare. Or an antimatter bomb

That's what's confusing.  You say you don't believe nuclear bombs can exist, but believe nuclear fusion is real?

Plutonium exists.
Plutonium is radioactive.
Small amounts release heat.
Larger amounts release more heat.
A big enough pile will release enough radiation to kill you.
Throw enough together and you get an explosion. (Look up Demon Core and 
Throw even more together fast enough and get a bigger explosion.

Somewhere in that list you have decided the lies start. Why? Are nuclear power plants lies? How do you decide?

I didn't say nuclear bombs are impossible per say - just that they have not been detonated on Earth, either because they are too scared to be the harbingers of the apocalypse or because our technology hasn't cracked it

Does it seem plausible to you that thousands of these nuclear bombs have been detonated in 'testing' and no adverse impacts to the Earth in terms of fallout or ozone damage etc has happened?

Kim Jong Un claims to have nukes. Yet for all his grandiose displays hides the explosions inside a mountain? On his own soil?

Yeah right

Fake news. Just bluster to scare other world leaders into compliance.
Title: Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Post by: JJA on May 13, 2020, 08:23:42 AM
I didn't say nuclear bombs are impossible per say - just that they have not been detonated on Earth, either because they are too scared to be the harbingers of the apocalypse or because our technology hasn't cracked it

Does it seem plausible to you that thousands of these nuclear bombs have been detonated in 'testing' and no adverse impacts to the Earth in terms of fallout or ozone damage etc has happened?

Kim Jong Un claims to have nukes. Yet for all his grandiose displays hides the explosions inside a mountain? On his own soil?

Yeah right

Fake news. Just bluster to scare other world leaders into compliance.

There certainly have been adverse effects!  See, Bikini Atoll for a good example of a radioactive disaster area from several detonations.

Also look up how there is so much nuclear contamination in our atmosphere that we can literally detect painting forgeries because newer paintings have detectable radiation in the pigments.  Same with steel.  For super sensitive medical imaging equipment, they have to slave steel made before the 1940's because steel made after is contaminated with fallout.

So yes, the whole world is contaminated with fallout. We can easily measure it.

And what is so weird about detonating nukes underground where they can be contained safer, and also because the political 'fallout' is much less than above ground. Where else would you expect him to detonate it, in downtown Pyongyang?

And what world leaders are scaring who? All the major powers have nukes. If they were all lies, they wouldn't scare anyone. That makes zero sense.

There is so mu