*

Offline mister bickles

  • *
  • Posts: 202
  • while there's life, there's hope!
    • View Profile
"nukes" ...... are they bogus
« on: March 16, 2015, 01:53:08 AM »
just wondering if any-one here has looked into this "nukes are bogus" stuff?

there's now a fair bit abt it on Y-tb and that

here is their old forum   .....   "nuke lies" ;

i think one of their former Forum members ("fakeologist") recently interviewed FE'r "Mark Sargent" on i/net radio.....


nisi Dominus frustra

*

Offline Tausami

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 890
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2015, 02:48:06 AM »
I think either 17November or Levee had some theories that nuclear weapons and proliferation were part of the conspiracy. He believed Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been firebombed.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline mister bickles

  • *
  • Posts: 202
  • while there's life, there's hope!
    • View Profile
Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2015, 03:50:09 AM »
I think either 17November or Levee had some theories that nuclear weapons and proliferation were part of the conspiracy. He believed Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been firebombed.

to understand some-thing properly, you need to be operating in the correct frame of reference!   :-B

the "rule of thumb" i use is that every-thing we've been told is a pack of lies and every-thing we know is wrong!   :(

fore-most amongst these is WWII which is absolutely replete with lies:

every-thing from Hitler's reasons for "invading" Poland, Pearl Harbor (a total hoax, i believe!), the bogus 'Holocaust' to the non-nukes;

WWII was, basically, orchestrated and choreographed by jews.....the overwhelming majority of whom are congenital liars!

some even go so far as to call it "Jew War Two" although i would argue that WWI was more a result of petty European nationalism than any-thing else although jews did play a notable part in the so-called "Russian Revolution";

as such....it comes as no surprise to discover that Hrshm/Ngsk were hoaxes;

the photographic evidence, indeed, supports this and, also, various reports from journalists of the day and, even, Japanese soldiers in Sth East Asia and Korea (Manchuria, then) who said it never happened!

what was the whole WWII 'nuclear programme'/Manhattan Project?

basically: just another money-making scheme for jews run by jews (Oppenheimer &c)

so....where can we find truth?

i believe: only from the ancient texts......the further back in time you go.....the less "agendas" there were.....

for me, that means sacred writings like the Bhagavada-Gita, the Hindu Vedas, the Buddhist texts and the Bible
(Dhouay-Reims translation only!).....all those texts have stood the test of time and their lessons, moral, spiritual and historical are all demonstratably valid  :o

(and only those things in our present world which agree with them or, @ least, do not conflict can be relied upon!)


nisi Dominus frustra

*

Offline Misero

  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, and more Evidence.
    • View Profile
Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2015, 03:06:48 AM »
Then you're a troll. Only trolls/morons instantly believe everything is a lie.
Nobody should ever follow my standard.  I am the worst moderator ever.
Yes, I'll still keep that in mind on this forum too.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5763
  • Videmus Omnia
    • View Profile
Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2015, 03:08:33 AM »
Well, not everything is a lie, that'd be impossible. Nuclear bombs, though, yeah, those are a lie. Nuclear power is real, though, which is why it is relatively rare and we're constantly told how dangerous it is. This is to keep the technology from becoming widespread and more people realizing that the same stuff that makes water boil can't blow up cities. At the same time, they can't make nuclear power completely vanish, otherwise people would question nuclear bombs.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2015, 03:10:36 AM by Irushwithscvs »

Ghost of V

Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2015, 03:12:10 AM »
Then you're a troll. Only trolls/morons instantly believe everything is a lie.

This is not necessarily true. Morons usually believe everything they're told. It's called gullibility.

*

Offline mister bickles

  • *
  • Posts: 202
  • while there's life, there's hope!
    • View Profile
Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2015, 01:04:26 PM »
Well, not everything is a lie, that'd be impossible. Nuclear bombs, though, yeah, those are a lie. Nuclear power is real, though, which is why it is relatively rare and we're constantly told how dangerous it is. This is to keep the technology from becoming widespread and more people realizing that the same stuff that makes water boil can't blow up cities. At the same time, they can't make nuclear power completely vanish, otherwise people would question nuclear bombs.

the general consensus of the stuff on the "nuke lies" Forum (now inactive) seems to be that nuclear power is just as bogus....
one of the bits of evidence they use for that is the so-called "Chernobyl" incident in the Ukraine in the mid-1980s....although that may have been more of a hoax than any-thing to do with nuclear power, per se
so...according to them...there is zero evidence of radiation damage in the area....none to humans or wild-life.....all of which appear normal.....although....again....that may only be evidence that there is no such thing as "radiation" damage;

they claim that "nuclear power stations" are really 'storage units' or "dump loads" for when there is an excessive demand for power....i think the analogy they used was the FA Cup.....several million people watching it and, during the ad' breaks, they all get up to make a cuppa and boil the electric kettle in the kitchen....thereby 'taxing' the electricity supply to the tune of some-thing like several thousand mega-watts in one hit......that's when the "nuclear power station" dump loads cut in......

who knows?

i doubt if they're gunna let you into a "nuclear power station" to poke around here, there and every-where and asking a gazillion 'trick questions' of all & sundry .....so.......that just leaves believing what 'they' tell you.....

yeh, right!!   ::)
« Last Edit: March 29, 2015, 01:06:42 PM by mister bickles »
nisi Dominus frustra

Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2015, 01:48:19 PM »
Well, not everything is a lie, that'd be impossible. Nuclear bombs, though, yeah, those are a lie. Nuclear power is real, though, which is why it is relatively rare and we're constantly told how dangerous it is. This is to keep the technology from becoming widespread and more people realizing that the same stuff that makes water boil can't blow up cities. At the same time, they can't make nuclear power completely vanish, otherwise people would question nuclear bombs.

the general consensus of the stuff on the "nuke lies" Forum (now inactive) seems to be that nuclear power is just as bogus....
one of the bits of evidence they use for that is the so-called "Chernobyl" incident in the Ukraine in the mid-1980s....although that may have been more of a hoax than any-thing to do with nuclear power, per se
so...according to them...there is zero evidence of radiation damage in the area....none to humans or wild-life.....all of which appear normal.....although....again....that may only be evidence that there is no such thing as "radiation" damage;

they claim that "nuclear power stations" are really 'storage units' or "dump loads" for when there is an excessive demand for power....i think the analogy they used was the FA Cup.....several million people watching it and, during the ad' breaks, they all get up to make a cuppa and boil the electric kettle in the kitchen....thereby 'taxing' the electricity supply to the tune of some-thing like several thousand mega-watts in one hit......that's when the "nuclear power station" dump loads cut in......

who knows?

i doubt if they're gunna let you into a "nuclear power station" to poke around here, there and every-where and asking a gazillion 'trick questions' of all & sundry .....so.......that just leaves believing what 'they' tell you.....

yeh, right!!   ::)

You could go to the chernobyle site, find a spot of really high radiation, and just sit there for a few hours.  Let us know how it goes.

*

Offline mister bickles

  • *
  • Posts: 202
  • while there's life, there's hope!
    • View Profile
Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2015, 04:00:09 AM »

You could go to the chernobyle site, find a spot of really high radiation, and just sit there for a few hours.  Let us know how it goes.

except....there aren't any such spots    :o
nisi Dominus frustra

Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2015, 09:40:04 AM »

You could go to the chernobyle site, find a spot of really high radiation, and just sit there for a few hours.  Let us know how it goes.

except....there aren't any such spots    :o
Then try the powerplant.

*

Offline mister bickles

  • *
  • Posts: 202
  • while there's life, there's hope!
    • View Profile
Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2015, 10:00:48 AM »

Then try the powerplant.

and....what would that prove?  ???
its buried under a gazillion tonnes of concrete...... 
nisi Dominus frustra

Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2015, 10:09:58 AM »
every-thing from Hitler's reasons for "invading" Poland, Pearl Harbor (a total hoax, i believe!), the bogus 'Holocaust' to the non-nukes;

Pearl Harbor was so fake that the US literally sank their own ships that are still sitting there in the bay.

*

Offline mister bickles

  • *
  • Posts: 202
  • while there's life, there's hope!
    • View Profile
Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2015, 10:25:30 AM »

Pearl Harbor was so fake that the US literally sank their own ships that are still sitting there in the bay.

that's exactly what they did.....
most of the ships that were "sunk" (with under-water charges) were decades old and due for the scrap-yard any-way...

PH was a sort of proto-9/11.....a jew 'con job' to get the US involved in a fratricidal European war ....the aim of which was to destroy Christianity and advance communism...
nisi Dominus frustra

Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2015, 11:26:09 AM »

Then try the powerplant.

and....what would that prove?  ???
its buried under a gazillion tonnes of concrete...... 

Actually it isn't.  They didn't seal it off.  You can walk right in. 

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 565
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2016, 01:48:59 AM »
As to the question of nuclear power being bogus: I (myself, me, personally, not "I once knew a guy who...") operated a US Navy nuclear power plant for four years.  Had it been bogus the ship would have required a source of some other fuel and a suite of machinery to use it, and I would have seen this.  In my four years serving on the ship, the only fuel we brought aboard was diesel for the helicopter and the emergency generators, in quantities far too small to secretly be the "true" power for the ship.  There were no spaces within the ship to which I was denied access, and the only source of energy to make the propulsion and electric turbines run was steam coming from the reactor compartment.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2016, 09:04:57 AM »
NUCLEAR ENERGY FILE

From one of the most prestigious physicists of the second half of the 20th century, Harold Puthoff:

Classical physics tells us that if we think of an atom as a miniature solar system with electronic planets orbiting a nuclear sun, then it should not exist. The circling electrons SHOULD RADIATE AWAY their energy like microscopic radio antennas and spiral into the nucleus. To resolve this problem, physicists had to introduce a set of mathematical rules, called quantum mechanics, to describe what happens. Quantum theory endows matter and energy with both wave and particle-like characteristics. It also restrains electrons to particular orbits, or energy levels, so they cannot radiate energy unless they jump from one orbit to another.
Measuring the spectral lines of atoms verifies that quantum theory is correct. Atoms appear to emit or absorb packets of light, or photons, with a wavelength that exactly coincides with the difference between its energy levels as predicted by quantum theory. As a result, the majority of physicists are content simply to use quantum rules that describe so accurately what happens in their experiments.

Nevertheless, when we repeat the question: "But why doesn't the electron radiate away its energy?", the answer is: "Well, in quantum theory it JUST DOESN'T". It is at this point that not only the layman but also some physicists begin to feel that someone is not playing fair. Indeed, much of modern physics is based on theories couched in a form that works but they do not answer the fundamental questions of what gravity is, why the Universe is the way it is, or how it got started anyway.

Bohr had no right to propose a postulate WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE SOURCE OF THE ENERGY REQUIRED FOR THE ELECTRONS TO CONTINUE TO ORBIT AROUND THE NUCLEUS. The assumptions made by both Rutherford and Bohr are dealt with in the Case against the Nuclear Atom by Dr. Dewey Larson, and are shown to be dead wrong.

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana02.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana03.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana04.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana05.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana01.htm

W. Pauli introduced the notion of the neutrino, BASED TOTALLY ON THE ORBITING ELECTRON MODEL OF BOHR; here are some comments:

THE ELUSIVE NEUTRINO: In my opinion the neutrino concept is the work of a relativistic accountant who tries to balance his books by making a fictitious entry. He does not recognize the existence of the aether and so, when accounting for something where an energy transaction involves an energy transfer to or from the aether, he incorporates an entry under the heading 'neutrinos'.



Since the 1980s technological advances such as the the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) have made it possible to view, and even manipulate, the individual atoms on the surfaces of solid matter. Such images are widely available, but each one takes a considerable amount of time to produce by moving the tip of the probe slowly back and forth across the target, and in every case the atoms depicted are clearly defined, as in the image below, which is a representation of the image of atoms at the surface of a sample of solid matter.



Such images, when first produced, finally confirmed beyond all doubt the existence of atoms as individual, spherical structures, which in solids are in close proximity to others and arranged in the rows or patterns that could be expected to form for a conglomeration of larger spherical objects such a balls or oranges. But the most striking result is that there is no evidence of discontinuity in these images, and even more significantly there is no evidence of the assumed independent motion or oscillation of atoms in this state.

If as kinetic theory suggests, each of the atoms of a solid are oscillating eternally within a set volume of empty space separating it from adjacent atoms, then instead of the clearly defined images of rows of spherical atoms, the images of the atoms would be indistinct and blurred.

Any independent observer would accordingly conclude that in this state of matter atoms do not have any characteristic of independent motion and that no empty space or vacuum exists, between them, eminent physicists however, instead of accepting these visual images as representing the reality of atomic interactions in solids, cling to current scientific dogma and reject these clear results, inventing vague and patently unsatisfactory reasons as to why these empirical results do not contradict the hypothetical concepts of kinetic motion and discontinuity.



http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm

A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON...there are some threads which attempt to prove the fake nuclear weapons scenario (see the material I have posted here already)...the physics behind the nuclear atom is completely false...



No atoms had even remotely been seen visually until 1985, when IBM Research Almaden Labs was the first to use an electron tunneling microscope to actually photograph the organization of molecules of germanium in an ink-blot. Here what we see from this experiment are indistinct, fuzzy spherical objects that appear to have some non-spherical geometric qualities to their shape and are in an extremely geometric pattern of organization, which was definitely a surprise for conventional science. How could the random nature of atoms described by the Heisenberg principle, ever result in such an ordered pattern? Perhaps the probability distributions are not 'distributions' at all.



Furthermore, when quantum physicists have studied the electrons of the atom, they have observed that they are not actually points at all, not particulate in nature, but rather form smooth, teardrop-shaped clouds where the narrowest ends of the drops converge upon a very tiny point in the center.

There are no Electron Orbits! Bohr's model, which started the notion of electrons traveling around the nucleus like planets has misled a lot of people and scientists. If you have learned such an idea, forget about it immediately. Instead, all calculations and all experiments show that no satellite-like orbital motion exists in the normal atom. Instead, there are standing wave patterns, very similar indeed to the polar plots of antenna radiation patterns.



http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36931.msg919169#msg919169 (the tremendous mistakes committed by both Rutherford and Bohr)

The Rydberg formula for the spectral emission lines of atomic hydrogen is an effect of the aether vortex theory of atoms, and cannot be linked with an impossible hypothesis created by N. Bohr, who NEVER demonstrated the energy source for the orbiting electrons.

In point, Bohr suggested a means preventing the atom exploding when charges neutralise. Although the concept of a central positively charged nucleus surrounded by orbiting negatively charged electrons seemed to remove the acceptance problems in Thomson's model, explaining the theory of octaves by deception, it won some academic acceptance. Many found the model very difficult to use, having inherent real world animation problems. By 1912, Rutherford's education, his acceptance of the Bohr construct and his subsequent experiments on thin metal foils, led him to introduce this construct as his revolutionary atomic model; where the negative electrons orbit the positive nucleus. On paper, the static atomic model seems to satisfy the chemist's bonding requirements, placing the bonding electrons in the atom's outer orbital shell. Unfortunately, as Chemical theory promoted the fact of an indivisible atom, Rutherford's atomic model won popular appeal through default, due to the fact that the daily news carried various headlines stating in bold type, 'Rutherford splits the atom.' Because Chemistry got it so wrong, gullible people assumed that Rutherford's other claims must be right, and therefore, electrons do orbit the nucleus. Enthusiastically, the youth of the day accepted the assumption as an assertion of fact, and with these preconditioned beliefs, many knowledge viruses spread and mutated.


HIROSHIMA: BEFORE AND AFTER

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1303231#msg1303231

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1303232#msg1303232 (PART 2)


NUCLEAR POWER STATION SOURCE OF ENERGY: DEXTROROTATORY ETHER

The Oranur experiment of W. Reich showed what the source of the radiation is: the ether.

Reich moved from New York to an area just outside the town of Rangeley in rural southern Maine in the early nineteen fifties. Here he built a new home and laboratory personally designed to integrate home and laboratory into a single, brilliantly practical building, now the home of the Wilhelm Reich Museum. Another laboratory was added soon after for students. This structure was the setting for the so-called Oranur Experiment, a chilling example of the accumulator’s undeniable ability to concentrate energy. The experiment called for the placing of a very small amount of radium in an accumulator, the unexpected result of which was to toxify a surprisingly large area of southern Maine surrounding his home and laboratory, one that took several months to dissipate.

A nuclear reactor is nothing more than a gigantic Reich/Tesla ether box; see the message posted here about telluric currents: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899 (the actual cause of "global warming"; the intensity of the dextrorotatory currents has increased greatly, the ice sheets are NOT melting faster, they are disintegrating more swiftly).


*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1304
    • View Profile
Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2016, 09:13:45 PM »
There are no Electron Orbits!

This is common knowledge; I don't understand why you are couching it as if some kind of cover-up is taking place.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2016, 09:36:42 AM »
There are no Electron Orbits!

This is common knowledge; I don't understand why you are couching it as if some kind of cover-up is taking place.
Roundy's right.  The idea of an orbit is for ease of understanding.  The electrons are in more of a probability of location at a given state.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5763
  • Videmus Omnia
    • View Profile
Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2016, 10:53:24 PM »
Well, they are still technically called orbits (or orbitals), so saying there are no Electron Orbits is completely false.

Offline Dionysios

  • *
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Re: "nukes" ...... are they bogus
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2016, 06:38:22 PM »
I think either 17November or Levee had some theories that nuclear weapons and proliferation were part of the conspiracy. He believed Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been firebombed.

I differed with the Nukelies website administrator who believed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed whereas I believe it was only one bomb which started fires that did most of the destruction of peoples' homes.

Having read the postings I made as 17 November, he correctly deduced that was and is my viewpoint as per a comment about it on his website.

Perhaps a more significant difference is the Nukelies website positive view of Nazism with which I disagree. Just because I agree with some facts presented by folks like Alexandr de Seversky and Crawford Simms does not mean I accept their right wing politics.

By analogy, I think Holocaust Museums are good educational venues to visit for school groups, law enforcement, etc, but that doesn't mean I agree with the ADL's views of Israel.

We need to use discernment to distinguish verifiable or testable facts presented by a source from that source's general philosophy.