ChuckWest

It's pretty amazing how many things become absolute fact when you simply deny the existence of nuclear power.

Only you can take the decision what you want to believe. I am not here to force you to accept my position. I am just here to provide you with the data I have aquired and share with you the rational induction of these data so you can decide on your own what you want to believe. If you think I'm full of it then fine, that is your right. I won't lose any sleep over that. Of course I come here also in the hopes that I will find an argument that will make me rethink my position but so far my convictions are intact.

It's... well, it's damned convenient, especially when you're trying to convince the world there's been a coverup involving literally millions of people for almost 70 years.

There is nothing "convenient" about the truth except that it always seems to make more sense and sounds more believable.

All so the public won't find out about... um, what were we covering up again?

You must go about your life with blinders and earplugs if you can't see how the governments are lying through their teeth all the time for power and money.

Why does it benefit so many to lie about their super-high efficiency batteries and their other amazing technology with a story about... well, other amazing technology?

Money, lots and lots of it. If they said the truth about the batteries they would lose the far more lucrative fake atomic cluster hoaxes they use to justify genocide and create the kind of fear that induces people to the false belief that resistance is futile and they have the power to destroy the world. Deny the fraudulent practices in certain scientific fields if you feel you must and deny that millions will conspire to do unto others as they would loathe others do unto them if you must but don't expect everybody to follow suit just because you find these beliefs convenient.

subs can't stay submerged as long as they do without a system to recharge them, and there's just not enough room on one to host a normal power plant AND a fake nuclear reactor.

Why do you rule out the possibility that they are using huge Sterling engines to recharge the batteries or the more probable secret underwater recharging outposts linked to surface power grids. You know, bleeding the surface power grid excesses directly into these fake nuclear powered subs. See how little imagination one has when he wants to believe a pack of lies agreed upon. Your brain refuses to acknowledge the many ways things can be done secretly.

You're going to have to show us some evidence that there is a surpluse.

Ok, let me see, you are denying that energy efficiency produces surplus energy? Explain how that works in your topsy-turvy world. Also while you are at it explain where they are bleeding these energy surpluses. If you deny the surplus please explain why and don't say it's because they need so-called nuclear reactors.

ESSPECIALLY in a country like france where 78.1% of the electricity is generated from Fission nuclear reactors...

This may come as a surprise to you but all of Europe's power grids are interconnected. The fake reactors in France could potentially be bleeding the energy surplusses of that whole continent. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Another problem you're going to have is if there is no nuclear reactors+weapons then there's no tritium + helium production so how do we get all the Helium 4 that is consumed every day?

I don't know. How many ways can Helium 4 be produced?

See Phi said it'd be batteries...

Totally possible.

I'm glad you agree, matter dealt with.

 

I'm just wondering though, how much nuclear physics you agree with, do radioactive isotopes exist at all in your world?

I don't agree with the concept of commercially-viable nuclear energy production because I don't believe one can create energy where there is none to create. I understand that energy efficiency does not translate into higher demand and I know for a fact that the big utilities must hide (read "sink") the massive energy surplusses produced by conventional means like hydro and coal for instance. I also understand that if these energy surplusses generated by the big utils become known to the public at large these big utils will lose their justifications for charging outrageously high rates for energy. The surpluses are directed invisibly to these fake reactors and "bled" into the cores. The energy flowing in is represented inversly by the instruments programmed by crews at reactor boot-up time. How else can we explain that a so-called nuclear reactor blacks out along with it's conventional counterparts? People pay up to 6 billion dollars per reactor and the damn thing can't light a 10watt bulb during a blackout. I have heard the explanation that the massive blackout that includes the reactors is to be blamed on the distribution grid but I counter that argument by asking why any fool would design a trans-national highway that cloggs up from one coast to the other every time two cars collide on a country back road. The idea is ludicrous. Anyways, can someone tell me where the big utils are bleeding their massive excess energy if not in those big fake reactor buildings??

Be prepared to think quickly when our Navy nuclear tech mentions the reactors he works with are not big buildings, but rather limited-space floating structures called ships and submarines. Do you have a canned response for that, too? Do you have a canned response for that, too?

Frankly I could care less how you describe my responses. The so-called nuclear navy is either powered by super-high efficiency batteries or battery/Sterling engine hybrids. Do you know what a Sterling engine is? One thing it is not is noisy and smelly.

I have just as much proof of faked altitudes as you have of faked radiation readings.

Actually, this thread is the first time I have heard that there was a major discrepancy in the altitude reported in the official record of the Hiroshima bombings. The vast majority of articles I have read from diffent sources indicate anywhere between 1800 feet and 2000 feet. Nothing over that. I suspect the hoaxsters are intentionally injecting the disinfo to confuse the issue now that people are getting wise to their hoax. Anyways, the higher up they place the bomb the more the mushroom cloud story falls apart, the more they bring it down the worst the absence of a crater becomes. Wherever they decide to park that hoax they are in trouble as far as I can see. As far as faked radiation reading are concerned you can't deny that a lot of fraud exists in science and scientific claims. Most of the time there is little profit in truth and billions in lies.

Actually, I have. I know exactly what every part of the core and the associated power plant does. I even know what it's made of and why. I know more about neutrons than you ever conceivably thought you wanted to know. I work with the reactor EVERY DAY. We know exactly what happens; we have to so we know what to do if things go wrong.

Does your work involve going into the core, removing the parts and examining them? I did not think so. As far as I see you are basing your assumptions on the instruments that report what you expect should be happening in the core. My contention is that the core is full of baking-oven type elements that "sink" the excess energy coming in from the grid running on conventional sources outside the building. The water circulates and cools these huge elements while the instruments running on secret proprietary software report what the technician expects to see. That is what I think. I think your statements only prove what you do for a living, not what is really going on inside the core of those so-called nuclear reactors.

Your only explanation for the continued radiation readings is that they could be faked. Why doesn't the same "elementary logic" apply to the altitudes?

Logic and inductive reasoning, you know, the stuff you apply to the study of these technologies, say that only a pack of fools would design a super bomb only to deploy it at such a high altitude that the resulting damage looks like the burning of leaves in autumn. The reason the altitudes are being played with at present is a direct result of the growing awareness of the hoax in the public mind and a last-ditch effort on the part of the hoaxsters to discredit the debunks with conflicting data. It's an old ploy. The vast majority of reports have the bomb pegged at near 2000 feet and I can't imagine why they would lie about that and expect to retain credibility. 2000 feet is already pretty high when justifying the expense and results expected. That so-called atom bomb made less damage than the raid over Tokyo several months earlier. Aside the cost of building the B-29, the cost for firebombing Tokyo and destroying 4 times as much territory was just under one million dollars. Why would anyone build a billion dollar bomb to accomplish what several B-29 could accomplish for less than one million dollars? Nobody, because that is exactly how they destroyed Hiroshima, the same way they destroyed a huge chunk of Tokyo.

Burden of proof is not a fallacy; it is the way logical debate works. Even courtrooms rely on the concept of burden of proof. If you had studied logical debate at all, you would know this.

I know about the rules of evidence in courtrooms. The rules of evidence are not the same for a civil proceeding as they are for a criminal proceeding. The civil proceeding will admit lots of circumstantial evidence that the criminal proceeding will not allow. So, that analogy is defective.

Congratulations, you officially have zero knowledge in the area of nuclear physics.

Who says I need a doctor's degree in physics to understand the basic and numerous flaws in the official records as they apply to the nuclear hoax clusters?

Get back to me when you know something.

Your ignorance has made you arrogant and pompous.

Please, tell me how my reactor works, then.

So-called nuclear reactors are big buildings and they are real enough, I have worked building them at the engineering level in structural development.

That said we can agree that the building gives no substance to the things going on inside so we won't worry about that.

Many many people are salaried to work in these buildings and monitor the security, supply and maintenance. Again nothing of a big deal there, everything at this level is expected to look normal and no special effects have come into play yet.

The game begins when we enter the control room. What is a control room anyways?

It is a representation of variables said to be operating to achieve the potential predicted in the mathematical models.

The truth is that the control panel is an advanced simulator running on highly specific top secret application software developed secretly a long time ago and refined many times since.

So the unsuspecting employees work all day monitoring variables fed to them by sophisticated digital processors geared to simulate a nuclear reactor core and it's cooling elements.

The so-called reactor has a network-type grid to distribute the energy it is said to produce to it's customers. The trick is that instead of distributing electricity it is "consuming" electricity tapped off the conventional source along it's distribution grid where they intersect.

The power thus dervied is fed to the brushes (electrical brush electrodes on the shaft of a rotating generator/motor).

You see the trick is that a generator can be a motor if the current is coming in instead of out. So, the turbines pushing the water around to give the employees that rumble feeling of might and energy are driven by electricity arriving from conventional sources.

That is why a so-called nuclear power plant blacks out when the conventional sources go on the blink. Some will say that it is the "grid" that is designed that way but everyone knows it would be stupid to design an inter-state highway complex that jams up completely because two cars collided on a country road, it makes no sense.

You see, we have people here that sweat themselves to death trying to pull themselves out of the debt burdon created by the arrival of a so-called nuclear generating plant in their district only to discover it can't even light up a common lightbulb when the conventional sources blink out.

I mean that has to be the most damning evidence that the industry is bogus.

The industry is compartmentalized and Joe knows nothing of what Al is doing and so on while the whole mess of illusions is shrouded in national secrecy protocols. The hoaxster's paradise.

The materials delivered and picked up are said to be radio-active so nobody checks further than their nose for fear of radiation poisoning which is another convenient fallacy to shroud the racket.

Lots of big money in so-called nuclear waste management and billions more for supply of fake fissionable uranium. More like they are moving simple lead around. The alchemist's age old dream of converting lead to gold.

I can't say for sure what is making the people said to be poisoned with radiation sick. I think time will show that it was those that had access to the bloodstreams of those people that ay have been the unsuspecting patsies to those that provided them with tainted vials to make the mark sick.

[Racist rant removed]

The atom bomb hoax also reinforces the nuclear hoax because they say you can build one hoax with the process of the other hoax so, more intimacy for the hoaxsters.

And we all know how hard it is to break these illusions once they have been solidly achored down into the public psyche. Hollywood has also played a MAJOR role in promoting these hoaxes and again it is no surprise that the same tribe that pulled the wool over the eyes of humanity would be pulling the levers in hollywood.

While you're at it, tell me why I am required to wear a thermo-luminescent dosimeter every day at work.

To give the commercially-viable nuclear energy hoax a great measure of credibility. It's pretty elementary I would think.

I have to say I've skimmed/read this whole thread, and frankly ChuckWest seems to have little understanding of science, or history... He accused the doubters of being unscientific and then a claim which according to his first post is his main argument is a GUESS!

Great rebuttal of my debunk. You must be a genuis.

I have no real science to add here, and don't really see a point in trying to add some as Mr West just ignores it, claiming it to be wrong....

There, now you have an excuse no to participate deeper and expose your total ignorance of the subject matter review.

As for no evidence of radiation at the bomb sites HAHAHA! Really you've got to be kidding?

No I'm not. Maybe you should go back and read the thread again before creating the illusion that this has not been discussed already.

You gotta love it when the nuclear conspiracy theorist takes on Jakiri, a professional physicist,

That is a good motive for supporting a pack of lies agreed upon. I don't blame him for being reluctant about a truth that could make him the laughing stock of his entourage. People might point at him and say what kind of genuis are you if you could not understand simple elementary logic. He has a direct interest in crushing the truth about those bogus sciences.

and yourdadonapogos, a Navy nuclear technician, and tells them they don't know what they're talking about.

That is a good motive for supporting a pack of lies agreed upon. I don't blame him for being reluctant about a truth that could make him the laughing stock of his entourage. People might point at him and say what kind of genuis are you if you could not understand simple elementary logic. He has a direct interest in crushing the truth about those bogus sciences.

I am not saying they would intentionally distort the truth just that they might find it easier to go along with the lies even when confronted by a damning evidence. Who in their right mind would want to become the laughing stock or lose their gainful employment? Not many people I estimate.

Ok, you by your logic a claim is safe as long as it cannot be disproven.

No, that is not true. The fact that it cannot be disproven or proven conclusively only makes it a hoaxster's paradise. Logic and reason are the tools to be used to understand the truth or fallacy of any given claim. I do not believe the atom bomb is a hoax because my debunk cannot be disproven but because the official story of it's existance is full of contradiction and the kind of messes of logic one would normally associate with a fraud or deception. The frequency of the contradictions and omissions in the official story of the atom bomb are such that I can hardly imagine why so many people come to it's defence. Like I said before, people find it easier to go along with a set of lies agreed upon rather than face the truth that they have been lied to shamelessly for so long. A lot of people have great interest in the continuation of those fallacies.

Since we have not yet disproved, to your immaculate standards, that the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima then obviously that proves that it was a hoax.

Just look at the contradictions in the official story and figure out the rest yourself. Ask yourself, would there be so many contradictions if the story were true.

Ok... I think I understand this now. And, I must say, I completely agree with you. As long as something can't be proven false, than it's true.

You forgot the sarcasm tags.

Try disproving that one, bitches.

Flamebait.

edit: By the way, if something is sufficiently high enough in the sky, they cannot have any effect on the earth.

Point?

Take satellites, or the Sun. these foreign bodies have no effect on us.

Irrelevant

I pretty much skimmed this thread, so please correct me if I just missed it, but what does any of this have to do with whether Paul Tibbets lied about something (or not)? I feel kinda mislead by this thread, and I'm going to rename it to something more appropriate to the subject actually being discussed here.

Call it whatever you like. Tibbets is central to the issue of a so-called atom bomb being dropped on the city of Hiroshima in August, 1945. My debunk says that he lied so there is no deception there. It's not my fault if the discussion has taken us away from that lie on Tibbets part once in a while during the course of this thread.

Paul Tibbets felt compelled to ask for an unmarked grave because of all the anger and resentment generated again him and his family by Hiroshima. That is no way for a "greatest generation" serviceman to be remembered. You want to hold his bosses responsible, fine, but leave the late Colonel and his family alone. They've suffered enough.

People expressed resentment towards him because they believe he roasted hundreds of thousands of people. My contention is that he was neither a fine serviceman nor a gentleman for having covered up the truth about the hundreds of B-29s that firebombed that city on that day. The contempt and resentment directed at him was completely justified if not motivated by the truth. End of that story I estimate.

First I would like to point out that you are answering a reply I made to iNow at the end of your post where you keep repeating WHAT? over and over. I pressed the quote button on iNow's post not yours. How it ended up in your bin is a mystery to me. So, I will answer the questions relevant to your post only.

I'm still unsure what your point is.

 

It is possible that government agents creep in during the night and exchange the contents of my freezer for another set which are exactly identical.

 

Something being possible doesn't make it true.

I'm sure I don't understand your point or your analogy. Can I ask you to reformulate that statement so I can respond adequately?

I was going to make something up, add in large amounts of gibberish letters, change the colours of the text and the background to ugly and garish and then post it on my website in order to demonstrate why a single unsourced link on something doesn't make it so, but I can't think of anything sufficiently absurd for it to outdo your claims.

Glad you decided to stay honest instead.

That's good, I was worried there for a moment.

I don't ascribe to the politics of Ayn Rand.

I'm confused, you were the one who wsa supposed to be denying that?

I never denied that there should have been a crater nor have I denied the absence of shockwave evidence nor have I denied the absence of the historical seismograms so I really don't know what you are talking about.

I find it interesting that you mention Einstein. If atom bombs don't exist, then the special theory of relativity is incorrect. If the special theory of relativity is incorrect, then why does all the evidence point to it being correct?

Every serious scientist understands that sometimes the best theories don't pan out so well when put into application. Especially those that postulate the creation of energy where there is none. Most scientists of Einstein's time were laughing at his ideas about unleashing massive energy from a small mass of physical rock. The formulations indicated that a massive release of energy would result from a chain reaction that would split all the atoms in a mass of uranium but the technique for producing the chain reaction was also the reason I believe the mass was consumed by the conventional explosion before the chain reaction could achieve optimal velocity. I am not saying that is the reason the bomb fizzed out just saying that it would appear to be a reason why it works on paper but failed in practice. Could be that the scientific claim itself was doctored and false to start with, I don't know. What I do know is that the evidence I have examined thus far indicates that the atom bomb is a bogus claim from top to bottom. Do you deny that there is a lot of fraud in the scientific community and it's claims? Do you refute the possiblity that the money involved was so tempting that they would fake the bomb rather than admitting they could never do it?

I can go into the evidence if you like, but the most obvious example would be when they sent an atomic clock on a plane round the earth, and found that it felt the effects of time dilation.

So they say, but is it true? Do you always believe anything the scientific community claims? I know I don't unless the facts add up. With the atom bomb the facts don't add up and it's the same story with commercially-viable nuclear energy.

I generally find that hot gas rises. I've seen hot air balloons and everything.

What happened to the shockwave? Does that not propagte too? A mushroom cloud need a thermally and dynamically stable air mass above it or it's growth is voided. The kind of thermodynamic disturbances implied by the mathematical models presented would absolutely void the presence of a mushroom cloud. Besides, mushroom clouds do not grow out of radial high altitude detonations. A physical impossiblity. Wikipedia also agrees with this fact of high altitude explosions.

Since you claim to have written it before, it's not even new; just copy and paste.

 

I'd also appreciate it if you could explain what you mean by a "magnitude dyslexic". Is English your native language?

My english is fine. A manitude dyslexic is any person that does not grasp the magnitude of any given thing. Thus, a person that reads about a plane violently rocked by an explosion 28,000 feet beneath it and does not understand that this same blast will create a crater at 2000 feet is a manitude dyslexic or a shill fronting from the atomic hoaxsters.

So you expose "facts", but are unable to prove them? I notice you are unable to correctly copy the spelling of the word "burden", are you one of those magnitude dyslexics I hear so much about?

Is this an attempt at humour or are you exposing your hatred and contempt for those that expose facts you should have known on your own a long time ago? If you wish to insult me or show contempt you will talk to yourself in the future, I will not respond.

If atom bombs cannot exist, then special relativity is wrong, which means that Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism are wrong, which means that the electronics in your computer wouldn't work.

Are you a fraud-in-science denier? Electromagnetism is not a hoax. You show your contempt when you insinuate I would deny the existance of electromegnetism. For an atom bomb to work there are far more elements at work than just electromagnetism and you know it so stop playing stupid with me and get back on track. You are exhausting my patience with your circular logic.

Are you saying they found bones of things which didn't exist? That's a pretty good trick right there.

I guess you never worked with plaster or plastics. My guess is you also believe everything you read as long as it has some form of "official" stamp on it.

Now now, you're never going to win a Nobel Prize in theoretical conspiracies if you don't play nice.

Who said I wanted a Nobel Prize. Vanity and prestige are not my motivations for exposing the atomic hoax clusters. Truth in the record is my prime motive. Fake atom bombs and fake commercially viable nuclear energy are presently being used as justification in taking lives massively in Iran as it was in Iraq so saving lives with the truth is another big motivator for me.

Hot things rise. Cold things fall. Very hot thing near explosion means that lots of stuff rises, edges cool down and don't rise as much, looks like a mushroom. You don't need an atom bomb to make a mushroom cloud, they arise from sufficiently large amounts of traditional explosives as well.

Yes they do and all are seeded from the ground.

I'm sorry, where? My magnitude dyslexia is playing up again.

Don't be sorry, just answer the question. Why are plants growing everywhere one week after a blast said to void plant growth for 70 years? Will you evade that question to with lame burden of proof excuses?

Oh, I do care, very much. I have my best man on the case.

Please explain. Do you mean that you are having someone photoshop a few to use in this thread or are you digging up TNT seismograms to pass of as so-called atomic seismograms?

There was a shockwave. You can tell because of all the buildings that have been knocked over, unlike, say, Dresden.

They did not use M-69 aimable cluster firebomblets in Dresden and the aerial views of Hiroshima post-bombing look more like a huge autumn leaf burning than the consequence of an earth shattering atomic explosion. The streets are clear of debris, the trees are thin, charred and still standing upright. You call that a shockwave. How is your man doing on those historical seismograms, is the ink dry yet?

Why would there be massive radiation? If the bomb is detonated at a couple of thousand feet, all the fallout blows away.

Because the authorities said people died from exposure to it. Are you making this up as you go along?

There'd only be fallout if there was a crater, because local fallout is caused by a mixture between the crater debris and the remnants of the bomb.

You are building one fallacy on top of another and you wish for me to take you seriously. Is logic your first language?

Oh sorry, that's consistent and must be therefore evidence of a new world order.

The new world order is actually a very old world order run by the same tribal affiliates generation after generation. The new world order hoax was designed specifically to hide that fact.

Why would the japanese fake mushroom cloud pictures? Were they "in" on the bombing of their own cities?

Who said the Japanese faked those pictures? Sure they were "in" on it at the highest levels. They have conspired with other nations to kill their own many times in the past.

I am a comedy writer as it happens, yes. Only in my spare time though.

I see you are good at it. Got me rolling on the floor laughing more than once.

I don't think you know what the word "science" means.

Methinks you don't know what the expression fraud-in-science means.

If it would help you with this kind of problem, I know a good magnitude dyslexia specialist if you want me to give you his contact details.

Now you are being silly and not living up to your stature as a good stand up comedian.

Why indeed? An insightful question!

Have you ever thought for one instant that, had they actually built the bomb, that they would have been so frightened by it's potential that they would have buried it fast and killed all those in the know about it and bought off the silence of the others? What makes you think those elites would not have seen this as a great threat to their global hedgemony?

You aren't going to tell me how many people have a vested interest? That's not very interesting.

Nobody knows the exact figures. A lot I presume.

Well, at least I know the difference between altitudes of 2,000 feet and 100,000 feet. Perhaps you have magnitude dyscalculia as well as magnitude dyslexia, fate hasn't treated you kindly I'm afraid.

You are being silly again.

I often confuse hilarity with delerium myself, it goes away after a while.

Cure it and get on with your life. Are you a big meat eater suffering the ravages of excessive preuric acid ingestion?

Don't you know how easily altitudes can be faked?

Is that what you are saying happened? That they faked the altitude and the so-called atomic blast was a ground detonation?

The burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim, i.e. you. You are saying it was a hoax, so YOU must provide the evidence. It is not up to us to prove your declarations false; the defense is under no obligation to prove the prosecution incorrect..

The official story of the atom bomb is no defense. It is a fable riddled with contradictions and omissions and outright lies. My only burdon is providing the reader with the data I have examined and the conclusions this has led me to so they may do their own research and reach their own conclusions.

You're right. Fission doesn't exist. My reactor is just a room full of hamsters turning generators.

How do you know what is really going on in the core of a so-called nuclear reactor, have you taken one apart and examined the pieces on your kitchen table. If you have not themn you are merely speculating.

Not only are you failing to respond to reasonable objections... not only are you failing to support your views with anything more than your own graphic which has no support... but you also are claiming things that are outright false. Many of these falsehoods have already been pointed out to you.

That is a lie. I get the distinct feeling you are setting me up for banishment. I have responded adequately to all questions whether they satify your inability to grasp elementary logic or not.

Repeating yourself doesn't make your comment any more valid. Prove it. Show us, don't tell us.

The only reason you refuse to prove me wrong is because you are hiding behind your burdon of proof fallacy.

Your suggestion that a detonation at 2000ft must leave a massive crater is false.

Where is your evidence that it would not make a crater?

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/enw77b1.html

The bomb detonated more than 4x higher than that.

What kind of idiots would spend billions designing a bomb they will blow up so high in the sky nobody will notice? I think your assumption that the so-called atom bomb was detonated at 4 times the height reported for decades is rediculous. Proof that the web is also full of disinfo. They did not build their so-called atom bomb just to give the Enola Gay a few jolts you know.

Because the only point you've made is that the cartoon you drew disproves something... which it does not. If your theory is so true and accurate, you should be able to support it with the math. It's not hard, but if you don't understand how to do it, it also calls into questions your conclusions.

I made many other points. That you choose to ignore them or consider them trivial is your problem not mine.

Conclusions from logic are fine, but you've based these conclusions in false premises, so your conclusions are false themselves.

Are you going to prove me wrong or rant about all day?

Proof? Once your claim has been substantiated, you can call all those who disagree with you all the names you want. However, you can't seem to substantiate your claim. Where's the beef? Why can't you answer the most basic of questions posed to you?

What have you contributed to this thread besides gratuitous comments and trivial marginalizations. You have done nothing to defend that pack of lies they call an official story of the so-called atom bomb.

More dribble. Show us, don't tell us.

I don't owe you nothing. If you are not satified with my explanations that is fine and you can move on and let some other genuis pick up the slack.

I don't think anyone doubted they had the means.

That is all that is required to make my point.

So you can't source the claim?

I did and gave you a link. You are playing the parrot again. Are you that desperate?

Can't argue with logic like that. Ever look into the works of Ayn Rand? A=A sounds right up your street.

I am not Ayn Rand's mother.

Yes you did. Unless you meant that you guessed that this was the case, in which case please go away and demonstrate it.

No guesswork. Fact 1= Enola Gay at 30,000 feet, Fact 2= so-called atom bomb detonated at 1826 feet above the ground, Fact 3= B-29 rocked violently twice, Fact 4= trees still standing and streets clear and underground sewers barely damaged and seismograms missing, Fact 5=no crater. Deny that.

I find amusement in your resistance to basic mathematics, as you implored someone earlier in the day to "do the math chum".

I find it unusual that someone pretending to know so much about physics can't grasp elementary logic. All you do is play the selectively curious card and turn circles around that hoping the reader will interpret that as scientific wisdom. Where are your mathematical formulations, Einstein?

Turbulance can be caused by a pressure wave. A pressure wave can be caused by heat, which disproportionately moves upwards due to the difference in density between the super-heated gases and the surrounding air (which coincidentally forms a mushroom cloud). The ground need not be affected.

In a radial airborne detonation the shockwaves go in all directions. Except of course when you describe them.

Could you please point out the formula, for those of us who can't immediately discern it?

I don't write for the benefit of the magnitude dyslexics that are dead set against assimilating elementary logic. Get a tutor.

You were the one who said it was impossible. The burden of proof is upon you.

I recognize no such burdon. I expose the facts as I see them and that is the limit of my so-called burdon.

Furthermore, if you think that mathematics is an exercise in muddling the issue why are you able to use a computer right now?

So now you claim atom bombs are real because computers are real. That is amusing. How do you come to that conclusion? I never denied the existance of computers. I sometimes hear other say that public schools can't be all that bad, after all, they put a man on the moon with that type of instruction, lol. Next you will claim that dinosaurs existed because they found bones.

Unfortunately, if you don't answer the questions I present I have little option but to repeat them.

I also have the option of ignoring spam like that.

Why are you trying to distract from something which, if you have evidence, should be easy to demonstrate?

You still have not provided evidence that a mushroom cloud grows out of an airborne radial explosion and you have no explanation for plant growth everywhere in Hirosdhima after the bombings and you don't care to know where the historic seismograms went and you provided no evidence to explain the absence of a shockwave in Hiroshima and you neglected to give an explanation why the city started rebuilding the very next day in spite of the massive radiation that should have been present. You are also totally oblivious to the fact that Tibbets was a Hollywood insider and you probably deny they had the means to show a fake mushroom cloud in the post bombing pictures of Hiroshima and you accuse ME of distracting, lol. Are you a stand up comedian besides plying forums for atom bomb hoaxsters?

No, I call the process by which hypotheses are arrived at and tested by empirical methods using repeatable experiments the scientific method, lol. It's been quite successful over the years, too.

Lying has also been a SUCCESSFUL science over the years. Very profitable science.

When you say "lied to massively about the atom bomb", do you mean that it was used at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or that it exists?

I deny it's very existance and believe they will never build one. Why else would they have to fake it?

None whatsoever.

Yes, that's right. Is that a banning offence at atombombhoaxmaintenance.com?

Could you quote them please? Humour me.

Your question shows without doubt that you don't know the first thing about the conditions required for the growth of a mushroom cloud.

Here's something I missed earlier:

 

 

 

This is hilarious.

You sound delirious. Are you ok?

A quote demonstrates nothing. Even assuming the event took place, that demonstrates nothing either.

It does demonstrate that the Americans had the means at their disposal to irradiate the survivors of the incendiary raid with x-rays they could later describe as the effects of so-called atomic bomb radioactive fallout. Doesn't get simpler then that.

You have asked us to cast off the lies of the hoaxers, but if you cannot see that an unsourced and, by context, misleading or downright inaccurate quote is exactly the kind of misdirection you are professing to be working against then I don't know what to say.

The quote indicates the means to simulate atomic radioactive fallout with x-ray bombardment. That is not misdirection. As I was saying, you appear to be on a fishing expedition. You are flogging a dead horse when you claim misdirection.

Why should we believe you over the conspiracy?

Believe whatever you like and I won't lose a moment's sleep over that.

Things that are obvious are not always true.

I guess so.

It's the reason why the scientific method rests upon experimentation rather than guesswork.

The atom bomb hoax is rife with scientific method and formula yet it is a hoax.

You said you calculated it.

No I did not. I showed a graphic and explained in simple terms why the story is bogus.

Why are you so resistant to supplying us with that calculation?

That is because my so-called calculations are a figment of your imagination. Where are your calculations to prove that a blast over a city at 2000 feet that rocks a B-29 violently at 30,000 feet will not crush everything below it and leave a massive crater? I have not seen your so-called evidence yet.

There is no maths in your graphic.

Take another look and you will see there is an altitude scale and representative values. Probably not the mind-boggling physics math you are expecting but it is very clear in it's simplicity. Why should I bog myself down with complex math when a simple elementary formula is good enough to make my point?

What I'd like is a mathematical demonstration. If it's so obvious, it should be simple; what physical processes are you using to demonstrate this? How have you factored in the form that a nuclear explosion would take? What about the asymmetry of what can affect a plane and what is required to blast a hole in the ground?

Where's your simple model to prove the contrary? You ask a lot but provide very little. Why don't you show us how to muddle an issue with convoluted formulas a lay person won't understand?

Perhaps this is true. However, as you haven't presented any evidence or argument the question of what amount would be found convincing is moot, unless that amount is zero.

You are starting to sound like a parrot by repeating yourself and showing us that you can not assimilate elementary logic without bogging yourself down in myrad formulas and scientific wishwash.

If I have made up my mind, it's because you have not presented anything to analyse. An unsourced quote, an appeal to common sense and flat statements of a conspiracy are not a persuasive argument. You came to a science forum to put forward your views, why are you getting angry that scientific standards of evidence are being applied to your hypothesis?

You call what your rants a scientific method, lol? That's rich. Like I said, some people will believe a pack of lies and defend them with confident ardor instead of facing the fact that they have been lied to massively about the atom bomb. Do you have the slightest idea how many people have a vested interest in maintaining that hoax? Do you have any idea what is at stake for those people if the truth becomes widely accepted?

What debunks?

The ones you are desperately trying to bury under a pile of semantic hogwash.

so anything you post is undeniable fact

Not true.

and everything thing that disagrees is fake information.

Not true.

I think I've read enough.

Is that also what you said after reading the first paragraph of the official atom bomb story? Maybe you should read MORE instead. Thanks for not giving me a reason to doubt my debunk.

YT, you might want to delete the link to the woo-woo site in posts number 26 and 27 (quoted from #26). It underlies the word "THIS" in

 

Worked for me. I am not resposible for maintaining that site but I did export the content to THIS webpage. You can read it there if you like.

Quick, hide the link before somebody gets an education by accident. You sound just like those body snatcher aliens in the hollywood movie screaming because they have detected someone not put to sleep by them. Are you a thread cop, lol?

you`ve "debunked" Nothing! that`s exactly my point, all you Have succeeded in doing is evade perfectly legitimate and valid question (I can`t even say questionS plural) there was only ONE asked, and you didge and weave around it and Try and get ansy LOL

I answered that spamming you called a question. I told you that the information could have been faked. Very easily in fact. Do you take everything the government says as gospel truth? I hope not for your sake.

it says more about YOU than us, now, Calm down, and simply address the plain and simple question I asked you a kazillion wasted posts ago.

I am calm. You are very silly asking someone you just described as a crackpot to answer your question. You shoved this thread in the crackpot section of the forum so why are you still interested in what I have to say?

ok?

What do you expect? You want me to kiss your *** for calling me and my work crackpot? You have high expectations.

Is it a crackpot thread?

What's your excuse for showing interest in a so-called crackpot thread? Don't you have better things to do?

Radiation doesn't contaminate things; contamination does. Radiation, however, can activate things.

So, the incendiary bombs were laden with contamination to further the facade of US having detonated a nuclear weapon?

Incendiary bombs only irradiate heat and fire, nothing else. I never said there was radioactivity in Hiroshima. Where is the evidence that Hiroshima was radioactive? All the evidence says otherwise.

I was actually thinking the same about you. He brought up a point which you repeatedly ignored.

I ask you, how easy is it to lie about radio isotopes?

Flaming is against the site rules.

Actually, if you were paying attention you would have noted who threw the first stone. The moderator that jacked this thread to it's present location for no good reason did so qualifying it as a crackpot thread. In other words the moderator should moderate himself or expect the elevator be sent back up to her/him.

I knew something was amiss with the quote ""I was taken to an area near Mt. Hiji where American doctors from a research institution known as ABCC tested me over and over. I was X-rayed repeatedly in the chest, and from the front and back of my abdomen. I lost count of the actual number. Then I started to bleed about 8 o'clock that night, and the bleeding did not stop until 8 o'clock the next morning. I had miscarried." (From the screenplay of the documentary film directed by Mori Zenkichi, "For The International Community: A Documentary on Korean A-Bomb Victims")". I've just remembered what it was.

 

The ABCC wasn't founded until 1948. Is there a webpage or resource, other than http://www.jca.apc.org/~izm/sadakoeiyaku.html , that has this quote, preferrably with a timeline or at least some kind of indication of when the events took place?

The fact is that the Americans were irradiating people with x-rays and documenting the subsequent illness as so-called atom bomb fallout illness. What part of that don't you get? The quote indicates that the Americans had the equipment and the means at their disposal to irradiate people with x-rays and describe their illness as radioactivity-induced. People also got sick and died from exposure to the direct effects of a raging firestorm and exposure to the oil-laden black rain that fell everywhere following that massive raid.

You claimed to have calculated that the amount of force required to buffet an airplane at 30,000 feet would have created a massive crator at ground zero. I merely asked to see your justification for it.

Obviously you are suffering from magnitude dyslexia. You are the one saying I need physics math to prove the obvious. If a blast can rock a b-29 violently at 30,000 feet above it what do you think will be the effect felt by those directly below it? I wish you would stop being silly about that.

Surely if you're trying to convince us, then presenting your evidence should be the first step? It would be the crux of my argument because it's something that cannot be argued qualitatively.

It can also be demonstrated quite clealy with the elementary math I provided in my graphic. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that a detonation at 2000 feet from the ground that can rock a B-29 violently twice at 30,000 feet has to be uttery devastating and leave a massive crater directly under it. How hard can that be to fathom I ask? Do you need to see the simple graphic again?

I personally buy it because it was photographed.

Good for you.

You haven't actually made any statements that can be addressed yet.

For some people there will never be enough evidence to prove they have been lied to massively. Especially to those that should have known better and not fallen for those shameless lies put forth by the atom bomb hoaxsters.

Where do you stand on the issue of nuclear power and radioactivity in general? I presume you don't have an education in the area, as you seemed amazed that radiation, in the form of x-rays, could produce radiation poisoning.

Why do you ask if you have already made up your mind that I don't have enough education to address the issue adequately. A person must be seriously deluded to think that one needs a masters in physics to see the multitudes of contradictions, ommissions and outright lies in the atom bomb stories.

That's not a criticism, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

No you are not, you are fishing for something to poke redicule and contempt at. A serious resercher would have already grasped the most elementary points of my debunks. Assimilate those and we might be able to move on to some tougher stuff.

FYI - The original pdf had a period at the end of the url causing the not found error. Here's the original (DRAFT) copy "Chuck the evasive fu(k with excuses enough to fill my truck" was trying to share:

 

http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/hipec/conference/001.pdf

And that's not flamebait? Don't the site rules work both ways around here? Be civil and I will address your posts.

I`ll think you`ll find this is a SCIENCE forum, not a crackpot forum!

You have a lot of nerve calling this a science forum when you can't address the most elementary issues in physics. This is more like a hoax maintenance website run by those that find ignorance blissful. You can shove you isotopes where the sun don't shine. My debunk is not pseudoscience, the official story of the atom bomb is.

That's not what I asked for, and is irrelevent. You could express the energy released in terms of bicep curls or making cups of tea.

No. Don't need to in order to make my point that Hiroshima was burned down with incendiaries and not from a single blast from a so-called atom bomb. Could it be that you are suffering from the selective curiosity syndrome? I came to this forum to present these facts to educated people and all I see are evasive tactics and focus on irrelevancy. Why is that? The experts said nothing would grow in Hiroshima for 70 years and that was not true. The media and the academic literature speak of a horrible blast but the evidence provided by these same sources prove otherwise. Everyone knows that Hiroshima was/is located in a highly volcanic zone yet nobody cares if the seismograms went missing. Most people have seen airborne detonations at fireworks displays and none saw a mushroom cloud (proportionally speaking of course) yet everyone buys the mushroom cloud at Hiroshima story. Maybe I should be seeking answers on a cooking website, lol.

From: http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:brCkYWwD9N0J:www.icjonline.com/eqtips/IITK-BMTPC-EQTip03.pdf+%22hiroshima+earthquakes%22&hl=en

"The energy released by a M6.3 earthquake is equivalent to that released by the 1945 Atom Bomb dropped on Hiroshima!!"

That so-called radiation sickness can be simulated with x-rays, what else? Did you know that jellied petrol incediaries can cause cancers and even kill those exposed to it and the black rain it produces when vaporized in massive firestorms?

Not Found

 

The requested URL /~hipec/conference/001.pdf. was not found on this server.

Worked for me. I am not resposible for maintaining that site but I did export the content to THIS webpage. You can read it there if you like.

evading the issue are we????

 

I S O T O P E S ! ! !

Not at all. I just find it so insignificant compared to the other evidence presented thus far. I just think your insistance on this point has more to do with desperation than any desire on your part you get to the truth. Isotope readings are the easiest thing to fake. Especially when billions of dollars are at stake. This may not be the answer you were looking for but it will have to do. How about you tell me where the missing seismograms went to and why there are no signs of a shockwave at Hiroshima.

Lets see the mathematics behind your estimation please.

From: http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:brCkYWwD9N0J:www.icjonline.com/eqtips/IITK-BMTPC-EQTip03.pdf+%22hiroshima+earthquakes%22&hl=en

"The energy released by a M6.3 earthquake is equivalent to that released by the 1945 Atom Bomb dropped on Hiroshima!!"

What's this supposed to prove, exactly?

That so-called radiation sickness can be simulated with x-rays, what else? Did you know that jellied petrol incediaries can cause cancers and even kill those exposed to it and the black rain it produces when vaporized in massive firestorms?

Not Found

The requested URL /~hipec/conference/001.pdf. was not found on this server.

Worked for me. I am not resposible for maintaining that site but I did export the content to THIS webpage. You can read it there if you like.

perhaps you`d like to explain away the Radiation that has contaminated many ordinary things and objects there too, isotopes that CAN NOT be found in nature or without the use of such a device?

 

I`m all ears dude!

I don't need your ears, it's the eyes that do the work here. Maybe you can explain why oleanders were growing everywhere just one week after a so-called blast they said would contaminate that city for 70 years and why the reconstruction started the very next day if that place was so hot and deadly. I'm all eyes for that one.

I can scarcely believe I`m even Having this discussion!

Believe it or provide evidence to refute it. That's how discussions work.

next you`ll be saying that the nips where in on it too, to worry the Russians (that incidently were going to there Rescue 2 days before bomb was dropped) so maybe the Chinese?

The Japanese have a long history of asking the Americans to send military support and equipment to help them crush their internal uprisings and revolts. See the movie The Last Samourai starring Tom Cruise for an example of the Japanese using American consultants and specialists and American machine guns to kill their own people. At the highest levels of government the tribal affiliates are very cooperative. Also, ask yourself why the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbour knowing perfectly well that they could not win and that the payback for that would cost dearly to their own people, and it did as history shows very clearly.

Read the following text for a look at the internal conflicts and troubles the B-29 raids solved for the city of Hiroshima and it's reconstruction planners:

Hiroshima's Post-conflict Reconstruction

Not too many things make a mushroom cloud this big.

Mushroom clouds do not grow out of high altitude blasts. Read the following quote from Wikipedia:

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

"Detonations produced high above the ground do not create mushroom clouds."

And what about the effects of radiation, not seen with conventional weapons?

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp22.shtml

From: http://www.jca.apc.org/~izm/sadakoeiyaku.html

"I was taken to an area near Mt. Hiji where American doctors from a research institution known as ABCC tested me over and over. I was X-rayed repeatedly in the chest, and from the front and back of my abdomen. I lost count of the actual number. Then I started to bleed about 8 o'clock that night, and the bleeding did not stop until 8 o'clock the next morning. I had miscarried." (From the screenplay of the documentary film directed by Mori Zenkichi, "For The International Community: A Documentary on Korean A-Bomb Victims")

Also, you claim that rebuilding started the next day, where is your proof of that?

Hiroshima's Post-conflict Reconstruction

Also, what is the point of this conspiracy... what would the US have to gain from fabricating an atomic explosion?

Money, power, the usual motives.

lets see, a resource poor nation fighting an all out war in which it is lHiroshima is located in the Honshu Arc. This is a volcanic zone with five volcanoes that they were monitoring 24/7 with seismological equipment.Hiroshima is located in the Honshu Arc. This is a volcanic zone with five volcanoes that they were monitoring 24/7 with seismological equipment.osing, badly. now, this usually means all non-military value research projects get put on indefinite suspension and the resources used to further the war effort.

 

if material shortages didn't affect the monitoring the people getting shoved into the military and related weapons manufacturing would.

Are you saying they stopped monitoring the five volcanoes nearby because they were short of material because of the war? In other words you are saying they would risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of people because there was a risk the war would kill them? Do you see how rediculous that sounds?

I think something else that may have been overlooked too, this place was Japan, a KNOWN Earthquake zone (like we get rain in the UK), they built their things to be sturdier or inversely quite Flimsy so as not to inflict harm (think paper walls).

Hiroshima is located in the Honshu Arc. This is a volcanic zone with five volcanoes that they were monitoring 24/7 with seismological equipment. Do you know where the historical seismograms of Hiroshima or Nagasaki disappeared to? Do you find it odd that they would go missing?

On the question of the buildings built to resist an eartquake would you care to eastimate the intensity of the quake equivalency the bomb generated, M3.0, M5.0, M6.0, M7.0, M9? Don't forget, this is reported as a blast of sufficient intensity to rock a B-29 at 30,000 feet in the air. In my estimation a blast that intense would leave a massive crater at 2000 feet from the detonation if it can rock a huge aircraft at 30,000 feet.

so the ones that Are standing were more than likely to have been reinforced Better than anything Similar in the USA for instance where earthquakes are quite rare.

 

this may play a part too!

I don't think so.

 

What looks like nice, flat farmland in this picture, interspersed by a few scattered buildings, is anything but. It is ridden with the debris of what was formerly a very densely packed city before the shockwave flattened the city. Hiroshima was wall-to-wall buildings before Little Man knocked them down.

I am looking at the photo you posted and I see trees standing and I see the roads very clearly and I see no evidence of a shockwave. What I see is a city that was burned down with incendiaries. Did you know that they started rebuilding that city the very next day? Did you know that oleanders were growing everywhere in this city they said nothing would grow for over 70 years?

I remember reading about this somewhere (I'll try to find it but this was from a pre-internet book). IIRC, by detonating well above the city the blast was spread out over a much greater area, lessening the total impact on denser material like the ground surfaces (bare ground, asphalt and concrete). A ground detonation would have left a crater but the aerial detonation just spread to a much greater degree and spent it's energy knocking most everything flat.

Everyone gets three guesses, you still have two left.

The double shock the plane felt was probably the oscillation effect any explosion would have.

Yeah right. Do you suppose those on the ground a mere 2000 ft from the blast were immune to this so-called oscillation effect?

I'm kind of curious what alternatives this particular conspiracy theory is proposing. Kind of.

Examine the aerial photos of the incendiary bombing of Tokyo on March 9-10, 1945 and you will see that the damage signatures are exactly the same. Tokyo was burned down by hundreds of B-29 using M-69 aimable cluster firebomblets. The M-69 does not produce the slightest shockwave, do the math chum.

This sounds like it could be fun. Let me hazard a guess ...

 

[all_in_fun]

In July 1947, just a few months after the Allies unconditional surrender to the triumphant Axis powers, an alien spacecraft crashed in Roswell, New Mexico. Among the equipment the tattered American Air Force found aboard this spacecraft were a computing device, a ray gun, and a time machine. With the aid of the computing device the Americans finally cracked the previously unbeatable Enigma code. A small team of Americans used the time machine to travel back to 1932. They fed the key concepts on crakcing Enigma to an obscure Polish mathematician. On returning to 1947, the time travelers found a slightly changed world. The Allies had still surrendered, but with this time with conditions.

 

The ray gun proved to be the key element in winning the war. The trickiest part was in hiding the use of the alien device from everyone, including the President. One idea was to use the ray gun to amplify the effects of a traditional bombing campaign. To this end, the time travelers deployed the ray gun on Dresden, changing what had been an ineffectual bombing into mass murder. Still not enough.

 

The American scientists elucidated the secrets of the ray gun, developing an entirely new physical theory along the way. Surprisingly, it was very similar to a theory originally called quantum mechanics but quickly renamed to quack mechanics after being thoroughly debunked. Americans traveled back to key points in time to help resurrect this theory and to ensure that the Allies would be the ones to benefit from it. One of the Americans who traveled back to 1940 helped jump-start Project Manhattan. Still not enough. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs only managed to destroy a few dozen blocks each. However, this was enough to give the ray gun the necessary cover. This time, the Allies finally prevailed.

[/all_in_fun]

You have a very colorful imagination.

sorry Chuck, but it still looks like Toast to me!

I agree. Incendiary raids will leave a city looking like it was toasted. When was the last time you observed a shockwave in a toaster?

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?

Here is a small diagram I put together to make the point graphically: