If you're being fooled then you're of a belief that what is fooling you is a truth, so there's hardly any evidence of fooling for those that don't believe they are being fooled.
No, there is still typically some evidence. Regardless, you have no evidence yourself, even though you claim you aren't being fooled.
We can see the process that makes it and we see the end product of it going into the car or truck.
No we don't.
The vast majority of people just see the petrol. No one sees it being made. It takes millions of years to make.
We see the engines and how they work, physically.
Nope. We don't see how it turns that liquid into energy.
With some specially designed engines (which I have never seen in person) you can see the pistons move up and down and little explosions occurring, but no evidence that the fuel is doing it. If anything, this would count against it as you don't see the liquid going into it.
But most you don't even get that. You see the fuel line goes to the engine, which is a big metal block which you don't see the insides of when it is running.
Nothing is hidden behind a cloak.
It ignites with a spark (petrol) and gives out its energy which is vented to the atmosphere as waste exhaust.
Have you ever witnessed that with your own eyes?
Sure, people say it is that, but where is the evidence?
You so called nuclear power sits in a tank of water under pressure, as we are told and just heats the water in a continuous closed cycle with absolutely no exhaust from the steam or so called energy creating it.
So? It has no need for exhaust as it isn't combustion. Instead it decays into other chunks of crap.
It's known as magic in sci-fi world but sold to the gullible as super quarter century energy giving metal.
Sure, just like petrol as super thousand km energy giving liquid.
It has no nuclear potential energy because it's not nuclear. It would be elements using external power to heat them to heat water into steam.
Sure, just like petrol has no chemical potential energy because its not chemical, it is just liquid.
You keep baselessly claiming it is heating elements with no evidence or rational argument at all.
You keep dismissing it as being nuclear with no evidence or rational argument at all.
You still need an explanation for why the power output suddenly dropped, why it isn't heating the water as much.
If you have a rod bundle of elements that can be lifted up and down then I'm pretty sure you can have extra unused rods as a back up ready to energise as and when one breaks down.
Those rods which are lifted up and down wouldn't be the heating elements. That is because the higher the more heat they need to give to the extent when they are completely out they need to give the most heat.
Then, in time when too many of them break down and do not give the output required, they shut down for maintenance, which weirdly they tend to do on a fairly regular basis if anyone's noticed.
But these people doing the maintenance are those you are trying to fool.
That depends on who those people are who work on a reactor.
They are the ones you are claiming are being fooled.
A so called nuclear rod could be an element. How in the hell would anyone really know?
In a way it is. It decays, releasing nuclear potential energy which heats the water.
In order for it to be electrical it would need a power source.
Obviously not in your eyes because you stance is to never question anything that goes against mainstream official lines.
No, my stance is to not be a paranoid delusional twat, and instead accept the most rational explanation.
I have questioned it and had my questions sufficiently answered. It is what makes the most sense.
I have even personally gathered evidence in favour of nuclear energy.
Until someone can provide a sound reason for why I should question it any more I see no reason to reject it.
Meanwhile, the simple fact it goes with mainstream official lines is enough for you to completely reject it.