Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

  • 1472 Replies
  • 406086 Views
*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #300 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"
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #301 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.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #302 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.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #303 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
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.00

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #304 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.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 11:35:28 PM by Deceiver »

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #305 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?"
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #306 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.
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #307 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.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 08:42:14 AM by Deceiver »

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #308 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.
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #309 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.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 08:51:06 AM by Deceiver »

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #310 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.
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #311 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.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 09:40:22 AM by Deceiver »

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #312 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.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #313 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.
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #314 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.
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #315 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.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #316 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?
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #317 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.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 10:38:25 AM by Deceiver »

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #318 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.
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #319 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.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 11:07:22 AM by Deceiver »

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #320 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.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #321 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.'

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #322 on: April 08, 2010, 08:03:42 PM »
Just curious 17, but what do you think about the movie Day One?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #323 on: April 08, 2010, 09:26:15 PM »
This thread is lol.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #324 on: April 08, 2010, 10:37:53 PM »

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #325 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.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #326 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.
Books don't lie...the people that write them do.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #327 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'

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #328 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?
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #329 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."
« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 10:23:50 AM by Deceiver »