1

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 17, 2022, 04:43:52 PM »

The question here is what is ‘evidence’?  How does anyone know that WWII occurred?  There’s plenty of eyewitnesses and a few are still living.  Maybe they aren’t telling the truth.  But if you have thousands of witnesses telling a similar story wouldn’t that increase the odds that what they are saying is accurate?  There were all kinds of physical damage and plenty of photographs to reinforce the stories told by the actual witnesses.  Now look at what happened in Nagasaki, Japan.  Wasn’t there 1000s of witnesses?  Wasn’t there an enormous amount of physical damage?  Ground zero was inland so you couldn’t have had a barge full of TNT floated in and exploded.  We are also talking about damage caused by the equivalent of 21K Tones of TNT and a barge these days only holds about 1.7 K Tones of cargo.  Add to that all the sickness attributed to radiation and that also rules out TNT.  If the Japanese didn’t believe that the Americans had a terrible weapon that could be carried on one aircraft, why would they just give up unconditionally and end a war?  I would say that’s pretty good evidence that nuclear weapons exist.  I’ve maybe had some exposure myself to the results of alleged atomic testing, but I haven’t had any health problems yet, but my sister has.  Will the government compensate her, we don’t know yet.  Would that be considered as evidence?  Anyone can make any kind of controversial statements without evidence and then say, ‘you have the burden of proof and I’m the judge who decides if your proof statements are valid’.  Does that sound reasonable?

2

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 16, 2022, 01:13:57 AM »

No one really cares if you believe or not.

I see, that's why people keep making long winded posts trying to tell me I'm wrong for believing what I do. You obviously care, Ron, or else you'd just not respond at all. By the way, where's the evidence I asked for? You don't have any, do you? Weird!

All the evidence you need is out there.  I have it, but you don't want it. No need for you to do any work because you don't wish to believe anyway. For you, ignorance is bliss.  I'm happy that you're happy!

You asked for my standard of evidence, then instead of providing it (you can't, haha, isn't that funny?) you instead choose to say it exists *somewhere*, just not here. Magical.

Here's the thing Ron, you don't have any evidence. You incorrectly believed something because people keep telling you it exists. Now you're upset, but instead of admitting you have no evidence, you just bury your head in the sand. Sad!

All the evidence I have is useless to you because you choose ignorance over knowledge.  Why try to feed a dead horse?  You say that I don't have any evidence, what's your evidence that indicates that? 

3

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 15, 2022, 04:03:46 PM »

No one really cares if you believe or not.

I see, that's why people keep making long winded posts trying to tell me I'm wrong for believing what I do. You obviously care, Ron, or else you'd just not respond at all. By the way, where's the evidence I asked for? You don't have any, do you? Weird!

All the evidence you need is out there.  I have it, but you don't want it. No need for you to do any work because you don't wish to believe anyway. For you, ignorance is bliss.  I'm happy that you're happy!

4

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 14, 2022, 09:33:18 PM »

Do you believe that boiling water is the same thing as blowing up cities? If anything, nuclear power plants and their complete inability to violently explode (instead they 'meltdown') should tune you into the nonsense that is nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power plants are not designed to explode but just produce a lot of heat to make steam.  They can release a lot of radiation if things go wrong.  That's already happened a couple of times.  I live nearby 2 different nuclear plants and have actually been inside the control rooms of both of them.  it's quite impressive but the authorities won't let anyone near one unless you have a legitimate reason.

5

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 14, 2022, 09:20:49 PM »

So, what are your proof standards?  Just what exactly would you have to see in order for you to be convinced that nuclear bombs actually exist? 

What are yours? You lads need to learn you can't ask me to prove something doesn't exist (that's not possible). You're going about this all wrong. You must provide proof it exists, not the other way around.

You misunderstand, as usual.  What do I have to show you in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  It's like getting into a taxi and the driver saying 'where to'.  You then say 'just drive, I'll tell you when we arrive'.  That's fine as long as you are paying for every mile driven, but it wouldn't work if the ride is free.  I'm asking you what kind of evidence would you require in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  I'll do the proving if you tell me what you need.

I would need to see, either in person or an adequate video, actually showing the internals of the device, showing that it's obviously not faked using a large amount of conventional explosive, and then actually detonated. The video of course would need to be devoid of jumpcut editing where they go "here see this is totally it, this is totally what explodes!" and then it suddenly jumps to an explosion as if that's the device that was used.

All you need to do now is spend a lot of time researching the Manhattan Project and get a secret clearance.  After that's done you could get an appropriate job that would necessitate viewing a nuclear weapon and be present if one is ever tested again in the future.  The authorities aren't going to let just any wacko, like yourself, view a nuclear weapon and see it tested without doing a lot of vetting.  No one really cares if you believe or not.  Actually it's better that you don't believe and you convince others, who think like you, not to believe too.  When the bomber flew over Japan to drop the first Nuc no one worried.  They just weren't afraid of a single airplane at the time.  The Japanese wised up after they saw what happens when the Americans dropped a few radioactive firecrackers on their cities. 

6

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 14, 2022, 07:33:48 PM »

So, what are your proof standards?  Just what exactly would you have to see in order for you to be convinced that nuclear bombs actually exist? 

What are yours? You lads need to learn you can't ask me to prove something doesn't exist (that's not possible). You're going about this all wrong. You must provide proof it exists, not the other way around.

You misunderstand, as usual.  What do I have to show you in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  It's like getting into a taxi and the driver saying 'where to'.  You then say 'just drive, I'll tell you when we arrive'.  That's fine as long as you are paying for every mile driven, but it wouldn't work if the ride is free.  I'm asking you what kind of evidence would you require in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  I'll do the proving if you tell me what you need. 

7

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 14, 2022, 02:04:28 PM »

So, what are your proof standards?  Just what exactly would you have to see in order for you to be convinced that nuclear bombs actually exist? 

8

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 11, 2022, 07:16:46 PM »

You don't have any 'evidence standards' for what a nuclear device is or isn't do you?  How can you possibly claim that what I've seen is false and I've been 'lied to'?  Gas lighting just doesn't work with me.  Why don't you go to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and start your spew.  People there probably need your kind of psychological help.

I'm sure you draw all of this knowledge from your enormous understanding of nuclear devices... You're just repeating what you've been told your entire life. "No! People can't lie to me! I am lie proof!"

Thanks for the confirmation of your cultist beliefs.  Your posted spews were well done but now it's time for the next step.  Please consult your master.

9

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 10, 2022, 07:53:13 PM »

If you are going to claim that nukes are 'fake' then you will have to starting calling a lot of people 'lying sacks of shit'.  I'm one of them. This isn't something that happens in space. 

All you can show evidence of is that a location had some large blast occur and there's some residual radioactivity. That's not evidence that a nuclear bomb exists. I can buy some radioactive element, shove it into a firecracker and pop it in a local park. Is that evidence I set off a mini-nuke?

You don't have any 'evidence standards' for what a nuclear device is or isn't do you?  How can you possibly claim that what I've seen is false and I've been 'lied to'?  Gas lighting just doesn't work with me.  Why don't you go to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and start your spew.  People there probably need your kind of psychological help.

10

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 10, 2022, 07:28:30 PM »

I'm the one asserting there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide).

You also asserted "modern thermonuclear fusion weapons supposedly don't have any radioactive fallout". Citation?

"Fusion, unlike fission, is relatively "clean"—it releases energy but no harmful radioactive products or large amounts of nuclear fallout."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon

I suppose it comes down to what you may consider a "large amount". It's all made up concepts, anyway, as I've said before, none of these designs are real.

Don't believe in radioactive fallout?  Consult the federal governments 'atomic veterans' program.  Check out Bikini Atoll and Enewetak Atoll.  I've personally had eyes on these locations and could even be eligable for compensation if I ever get cancer in the future.  If there's been no atomic bombs or radioactive fallout then there's lots of BS floating around out there.  How about that for evidence?

Nukes don't need to exist to make locations radioactive, unless you also think getting cancer from Chernobyl is evidence of nuclear bombs.

If you are going to claim that nukes are 'fake' then you will have to starting calling a lot of people 'lying sacks of shit'.  I'm one of them. This isn't something that happens in space.  YOU can see the evidence of what happens during a nuclear blast yourself because it still exists on planet earth.  I've been to these locations as have countless others.  You can go to and see for yourself.   

11

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 10, 2022, 07:04:09 PM »

Don't believe in radioactive fallout?  Consult the federal governments 'atomic veterans' program.  Check out Bikini Atoll and Enewetak Atoll.  I've personally had eyes on these locations and could even be eligable for compensation if I ever get cancer in the future.  If there's been no atomic bombs or radioactive fallout then there's lots of BS floating around out there.  How about that for evidence?

12

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 10, 2022, 06:15:59 PM »

Imagine my surprise that you provide no evidence for that assertion.
(If you are imagining no surprise at all then you are correctly imagining how much surprise I felt)

I'm the one asserting there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide).

Me: nuclear bombs don't exist
You: you can't prove that they don't!!!!!!

The Japanese can!

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation

« on: May 05, 2022, 12:26:35 PM »

The statement behind that originally stems from the narrative of the wider Flat Earth movement. There are a number of videos of pilots saying that the gyroscope of their planes don't dip for curvature, that they don't actually take Coriolis into account, that radar on F-15 jets go further that RE should allow, and so on.

A RAF document saying that the earth is round, or even that it spins, is almost irrelevant and does not directly address how pilot are "taught to fly".

I humbly suggest referencing these videos (I note none of them are about pilots being taught to fly over a flat earth as the wiki claims), so we can discuss their merits, rather than the diversionary quote of the letter which you agree is unrelated to FE.

There’s no evidence provided on that page to show that pilots are taught to fly over a flat earth. Just a baseless claim.

Actually, the Wiki does provide a number of links referencing that pilots say they are taught to fly over an FE -

I did watch the video and can personally attest that it was full of half-truths and implications about flying over a ‘flat earth’.  There were plenty of false implications made in the discussions of the GPS system, aircraft gyro systems, and the flight tracking systems.  Who knows if the statements were made because of ignorance or because it fit in with the sponsors of the show and the fact that there was some promotional time given to his business?  It was funny because this flying service in right in my ‘back yard’ so to speak.  I learned to fly in the same state and area and have 3 or 4 times the flight experience stated by the pilot in the video.  Years ago, I had an electronics shop at a nearby airport and actually worked on aircraft radios and flight navigational equipment including gyros.  My shop was FAA certified.  The flight instructor did state that everyone should do their own research, think for yourself, and form your own opinions.  I did all that and the preponderance of the evidence shows that the earth is a sphere.   

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation

« on: May 05, 2022, 02:34:01 AM »

I personally took flying lessons for many years and rose up from being a private pilot to getting an instrument rating and then on to getting my commercial pilots license.  Never in all that training did I ever run across any written training material that referred to flying over a flat earth.  My flight instructors didn’t ever refer to the flat earth meme either.  I will admit that when in the cockpit operating an aircraft, that the shape of the earth is of little consequence.  When you are flying an instrument flight plan you will always try to maintain the altitude assigned to you by air traffic control.  This altitude is either a height above the ground or a height relative to a particular reference atmospheric air pressure, when maintaining a particular flight level.  In either case if the earth is a sphere, you are automatically following the curvature and it’s of a minor consequence and you never really know or care about it.  Even the long-haul pilots flying an over the ocean route wouldn’t consider the shape of the earth in their everyday activities.  Their flight route is gotten from a computer and all the pilots need to do is enter two points. 


Anyone using GPS is, by default, using an instrument whose accuracy depends upon the earth being spherical.  This fact is designed into the software that’s being used in every GPS system.  Everything that was previously done manually by a navigator using a sextant now is being done automatically by the software operating inside all GPS units and is completely hidden to the end user.  Certain commercial GPS units can output the raw data that you can download into your computer and do some spherical trig on to verify how the calculations are done if you have the time, knowledge, and desire to do so. 

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: HF Radio Signals, Propagation and DX.

« on: May 04, 2022, 06:15:04 PM »

Your evidence of a round earth using HF radio propagation isn’t quite right.  On both the flat earth and globe earth models it would be possible for a radio signal to be bounced off the ionosphere and returned to the earth.  There wouldn’t be any significant differences between the two.  Using the flat earth model a radio signal could bounce between the ionosphere and the earth multiple times until it reached the edge and then would go off into space never to be heard again.  On a globe earth the signal could bound back & forth around the globe and return to the same location.
Years ago, while living in the USA I could occasionally hear Russian stations using CW (morse code) with a definite echo in their signal.  If you used your beam antenna and turned it to the North the signal would peak up.  You could also rotate the antenna 180 degrees and again it would peak up.  Clearly there was a short path signal and a long path signal.  One signal coming in via the shortest path on a globe earth and another signal from the same station but coming in from the opposite direction from the longer path around the globe.  One signal would be delayed from the other because of the difference in distances and would produce an echo.  This kind of phenomena wouldn’t be possible on a flat earth. 
The sunspot cycle doesn’t make it easy to observe this kind of thing these days but will improve in the future.  Unless the FET can show how electro-magnetic waves can be bent around in a circle in the horizontal plane the theory is deficient.     

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New Star Map

« on: April 29, 2022, 10:54:35 PM »

Ships sailing north from different lines of latitude converge toward each other. They don't get further away from each other. That is the reality modern navigation has revealed to us. Leaving the discussion of rotated constellations behind (because it is definitely unresolved), you don't account for converging paths as people move north from various longitudes.

The courses of two ships would converge on a Northbound voyage assuming that they are both North of the equator. If they were South of the equator the courses would continue to diverge until they reached the equator.

17

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 23, 2022, 02:38:30 PM »

Saying ‘prove it’ is a totally disingenuous answer because there are no stated ‘proof’ standards.  How can someone prove something without having acceptable procedures or standards?  Start with clearly defined standards in advance, then design a carefully documented experiment to lead the observers to a logical conclusion.  All the flat earth community would have to do is come up with VERIFIBLE alternatives in response to the round earth extensively verified observations. 

18

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 22, 2022, 12:12:35 AM »

If you want something else to contemplate, then give the following some thought.  The path over the ground of the space station is well known and can be verified by those on the ground.  At any particular time, there is a zenith point where if someone was on the ground at that zenith point the space station would pass directly overhead at a 90-degree angle.  Now you could assume that you could stay in that same location and see the space station pass directly overhead about 90 minutes later.  However, you would be wrong.  On a flat earth map the known path of the zenith points wouldn’t be in a circle.  That would mean that there would have to be a winch on the north pole to constantly adjust the rope length in or out to maintain the known orbit.  Maybe NASA has control of that?  Perhaps Santa is providing the facilities for that equipment?   Perhaps the most well educated flat earther has some additional knowledge that could be passed on to provide us some more interesting insights. 

19

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 21, 2022, 04:31:44 PM »

I suppose you could have a bunch of that ‘dark energy’ bend back around the edge of the earth and then make a turn in the opposite direction again to provide the shove upwards to keep the space station aloft and keep the tension on the rope attached to the North Pole.  That would mean that the ‘dark energy’ has mass.  You can’t have a massless object A impart any kind of momentum to object B that does have mass.  The implication then is what other kind of force would be available to cause a change of direction of the ‘dark energy’? All that ‘dark energy’ would also have to be ‘smart’.  Forces would have to be constantly adjusted because the winds (and the swirling dark energy) would be constantly blowing on the space station’s restraining rope and would distort the orbit if not compensated for.  Can you imagine what the effects would be in the summertime with all the typhoons in the Pacific?  I can personally attest to their presence and effects that can happen in the atmosphere.  There have never been any reports of turbulence caused by the ’dark energy’ to aircraft traveling to and from the research stations in the Antarctic. Surely there would be some swirling of that energy as it passes by the edge of the ‘flat earth’.  Try dragging a flat plate thru some water to see what happens at the edge of the plate.  I think that there’s just too many problems with the ‘theory of dark energy’ for it to have any credence at all and it needs to be revised.  Perhaps someone with plenty of education could be put to work.   

20

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 21, 2022, 03:38:09 AM »

Could you imagine what the weight of a rope would be that would be heavy enough and long enough to restrain the space station in orbit?  So whatever fictitious force is causing the acceleration of the earth would also have to accelerate the heavy line that extends from the North Pole all the way up to the space station.  That would be a very tall order, don’t ya think?  The force would have to vary with the altitude.  Even if you could consider all that it still wouldn’t explain the forces necessary to keep the space station circling.  That would require a force vector that also had a horizontal component.  So, is that horizontal component constant, or variable?  What would happen if an airliner flew into the rope while on a great circle route between the USA and Asia.  I know they fly in that general area because I’ve been on flights that did, many times.  I know of no airspace restrictions on the air navigational charts because of space station ropes.  If the force horizontal components are constant, then the Sun couldn’t change its orbital diameter to explain the seasons.  If the forces are variable, then you could expect the space station’s obit to vary.  Wouldn’t it be easier to just accept the globe earth and gravity?  Occam’s  razor, don’t ya know? .