Is it time to add a new member to the Conspiracy?

http://gizmodo.com/5909961/kodak-had-a-secret-weapons+grade-nuclear-reactor-hidden-in-a-basement

This article is a bit frightening.

Kodak may be going under, but apparently they could have started their own nuclear war if they wanted, just six years ago. Down in a basement in Rochester, NY, they had a nuclear reactor loaded with 3.5 pounds of enriched uranium—the same kind they use in atomic warheads.

The article goes on to give the following details:

• Nobody knows how they got permission to own a nuclear reactor with loaded with weapons-grade uranium.
• It doesn't make sense that the government would give a private enterprise permission to own a nuclear reactor loaded with weapons-grade uranium, much less in the basement of a building in a densely populated city, because of the danger it could fall into the hands of terrorists.
• Nobody in the city (officials, police or firemen) or even in the entire state of New York knew about it until its existence was recently leaked by an ex-employee.

So why did Kodak have a secret nuclear reactor loaded with weapons-grade uranium in the basement of a building in a densely populated city?

Kodak's purpose for the reactor wasn't sinister: they used it to check materials for impurities as well as neutron radiography testing. The reactor, a Californium Neutron Flux multiplier (CFX) was acquired in 1974 and loaded with three and a half pounds of enriched uranium plates placed around a californium-252 core.

Why is it that none of this makes any sense unless viewed through the Conspiracy lens?

For years REers have asked how the Conspiracy could possibly fake their photographs and images so convincingly.  Well, I think this suggests that they had Kodak, the world leader in photography at the time, working for them, with the aid of a nuclear reactor.

if they could use the truth to get something like that can you imagine what else they could get too? its quite crazy that they would allow this at all in a city

Just think about what Microsoft has in their basement.

Wow. Roundy, the article gives a reason why the had it.  Just because you don't understand the reason, doesn't mean it's part of a global conspiracy trying to melt your brain.
Although, your brain is melted. So...maybe you're right?!

Just think about what Microsoft has in their basement.

Piles of money?

Wow. Roundy, the article gives a reason why the had it.  Just because you don't understand the reason, doesn't mean it's part of a global conspiracy trying to melt your brain.
Although, your brain is melted. So...maybe you're right?!

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on May 30, 2012, 09:01:33 PM

Just think about what Microsoft has in their basement.

Piles of money?

Sure, the explanation could be rational enough, I guess.  But the article also blatantly points out that it doesn't make any sense that the government would allow them to have it in the first place. 

And by the way, here's an example of a conspiracy (whether you think it has ties in FE or not, there is surely a conspiracy afoot here) that was kept secret for decades before somebody blew off the lid.

Yeah it is weird. Yeah they didn't want it found.
However, I think if it was part of a conspiracy they might have done a better job of keeping the story quiet.

How would nuclear power help the conspiracy fake photographs?

How would nuclear power help the conspiracy fake photographs?

We can only speculate.

How would nuclear power help the conspiracy fake photographs?

Quite the opposite, the conspiracy printed all real photographs of the earth via extremely radioactive photo paper. Any individual that tried to steal the photos would have quite a hard time doing so, as outside of their protective chamber, the gamma radiation would surely kill all such intruders.

Quite the opposite, the conspiracy printed all real photographs of the earth via extremely radioactive photo paper. Any individual that tried to steal the photos would have quite a hard time doing so, as outside of their protective chamber, the gamma radiation would surely kill all such intruders.

LOL
That's a great line. Is that in the wiki?

Why is it that none of this makes any sense unless viewed through the Conspiracy lens?

One more thing I forgot to add....
The entire Flat Earth Theory can only makes sense if you look at things through the Conspiracy lens.
So, using the laws of probability, which do you think is more probable:
1. That we have been controlled and lied to about large chunks of history and scientific discovery by a global conspiracy who have managed to drop no conclusive evidence of themselves despite supposedly comprising of millions of people across the world and throughout thousands of years.
2. The earth is a sphere, which can be tested in many different ways by even a child (see links in my sig)

Off-topic, take it elsewhere.

i thought in FET nuclear weapons didnt exist?

i thought in FET nuclear weapons didnt exist?

No.  Certain FE'ers may believe that nuclear weapons don't exist, but it is not part of FET.

Yeah it is weird. Yeah they didn't want it found.
However, I think if it was part of a conspiracy they might have done a better job of keeping the story quiet.

Unless, of course, they plan events like this in order to cast doubt on their existence. 

A californium flux chamber for neutronical photography is no a nuclear reactor, uless you considerate me a nuclear terrorist if I buy europium at United Nuclear, or if you think hospitals should've a security perimeter
 

Wow. Roundy, the article gives a reason why the had it.  Just because you don't understand the reason, doesn't mean it's part of a global conspiracy trying to melt your brain.
Although, your brain is melted. So...maybe you're right?!

It explains the why, but not the how. How did they get enriched Uranium if not from the government? Why did the government let them have it? Why did they keep it so quiet? If none of their employees ever used it, who did? Why are they being so vague with the details?

What explanation is there other than Conspiracy? And given that the conspiracy must have used analog means to fake the pictures and video before it was possible to use digital methods, it is entirely plausible that they used the experts at Kodak to do it. Perhaps this was the payment. I'm doing some more research and adding it to the conspiracy article in the Wiki

I'm not far from Rochester. I am... Afraid.

I'm not far from Rochester. I am... Afraid.

I'd be a lot more afraid of the Rochester drug gangs.

I'm not far from Rochester. I am... Afraid.

I partially doubt you are serious, but the story does say they got rid of it in 2006.

It explains the why, but not the how. How did they get enriched Uranium if not from the government? Why did the government let them have it? Why did they keep it so quiet? If none of their employees ever used it, who did? Why are they being so vague with the details?

What explanation is there other than Conspiracy? And given that the conspiracy must have used analog means to fake the pictures and video before it was possible to use digital methods, it is entirely plausible that they used the experts at Kodak to do it. Perhaps this was the payment. I'm doing some more research and adding it to the conspiracy article in the Wiki

Dude. So far there's just a few internet news articles. You haven't even allowed time or opportunity for any authority (ie Kodak or government) to come out with an official explanation for you to attack as conspiracy. Relax!

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on May 30, 2012, 09:37:18 PM

How would nuclear power help the conspiracy fake photographs?

We can only speculate.

Sorry man. I lost it here. I quite litterally burst out laughing in real life.

+1 Internets my good sir.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on May 30, 2012, 09:37:18 PM

How would nuclear power help the conspiracy fake photographs?

We can only speculate.

That's what FES is very good at.

However, I think if it was part of a conspiracy they might have done a better job of keeping the story quiet.

I love it when RE'ers ask for evidence and then disqualify it based on the premise that the conspiracy is too good to make mistakes.

Either there is evidence or there isn't. You can't both ask for it and say it shouldn't exist. It's just a tactic to remain close minded and universally reject a notion, regardless of whether or not something is presented.

A conspiracy cannot be evidence. you cannot prove a conspiracy so how can we validate your claims?

wait.. are you agent Molder... maybe you have something here....

damn X-files so mind bending!

Quote from: Lord Oddfish on May 30, 2012, 09:36:25 PM

However, I think if it was part of a conspiracy they might have done a better job of keeping the story quiet.

I love it when RE'ers ask for evidence and then disqualify it based on the premise that the conspiracy is too good to make mistakes.

Either there is evidence or there isn't. You can't both ask for it and say it shouldn't exist. It's just a tactic to remain close minded and universally reject a notion, regardless of whether or not something is presented.

You mean FE'ers?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on June 06, 2012, 11:24:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Oddfish on May 30, 2012, 09:36:25 PM

However, I think if it was part of a conspiracy they might have done a better job of keeping the story quiet.

I love it when RE'ers ask for evidence and then disqualify it based on the premise that the conspiracy is too good to make mistakes.

Either there is evidence or there isn't. You can't both ask for it and say it shouldn't exist. It's just a tactic to remain close minded and universally reject a notion, regardless of whether or not something is presented.

You mean FE'ers?

Nope.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on June 06, 2012, 11:24:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Oddfish on May 30, 2012, 09:36:25 PM

However, I think if it was part of a conspiracy they might have done a better job of keeping the story quiet.

I love it when RE'ers ask for evidence and then disqualify it based on the premise that the conspiracy is too good to make mistakes.

Either there is evidence or there isn't. You can't both ask for it and say it shouldn't exist. It's just a tactic to remain close minded and universally reject a notion, regardless of whether or not something is presented.

You mean FE'ers?

Dammit, Zhark, if you want to make smart comebacks, at the very least get the linguistics right.  The subject of the sentence you replied to was the tactic itself, not the people who use that tactic.  Therefore, your response doesn't really make sense, and the dissonance this creates in the readers' minds sucks any and all humor out of it.

I was actually going to say the same thing, but Saddam beat me to it.

Forget it. He has no sense of humour. None of them do. They are without souls.