The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Science & Alternative Science => Topic started by: Rushy on October 07, 2022, 04:09:18 PM
-
Considering all of the recent fearmongering regarding Putin using nuclear weapons, I felt it necessary to remind everyone here that nuclear weapons simply do not exist.
They're not real.
They're made up.
It's a meme.
Seriously, they are nothing other than WWII propaganda that the Allies made up to scare Japan into surrendering and to keep Russia from continuing the war. Then Russia started to claim it also totally had nukes and yet no one ever used them. Suspiciously, no one anywhere ever uses them! Wow! It must be because humanity is so strong willed and moral and definitely not because they don't exist.
-
BS. My uncle's friend's son said he saw the mushroom cloud of a nuclear test once.
This is rock solid evidence that is irrifutable.
-
Considering all of the recent fearmongering regarding Putin using nuclear weapons, I felt it necessary to remind everyone here that nuclear weapons simply do not exist.
They're not real.
They're made up.
It's a meme.
Seriously, they are nothing other than WWII propaganda that the Allies made up to scare Japan into surrendering and to keep Russia from continuing the war. Then Russia started to claim it also totally had nukes and yet no one ever used them. Suspiciously, no one anywhere ever uses them! Wow! It must be because humanity is so strong willed and moral and definitely not because they don't exist.
Nuclear bombs exist just as Atomic bombs exist.
Unfortunately, the Atomic Bomb was used twice on Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of people.
The Nuclear bomb (if dropped in a major city) will kill millions. Just because it hasn't been used yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Faulty logic and you are getting wrapped up in conspiratorial thinking again vs. reality.
-
You see, Rushy, they do exist. They're just invisible and otherwise imperceivable, but they're out there. You know it's true because GoldCashew, a man on the Internet, said so.
-
Nuclear bombs exist just as Atomic bombs exist.
Neither of those things exist.
Unfortunately, the Atomic Bomb was used twice on Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of people.
That was just firebombing. Funny enough, the government admits that the Tokyo raids were firebombing (and they killed more people!). Awful coincidence that the US decided to use its two epic, ultra powerful weapons on... two remote villages and then nowhere else ever again. Really jogs the noggin.
The Nuclear bomb (if dropped in a major city) will kill millions. Just because it hasn't been used yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Faulty logic and you are getting wrapped up in conspiratorial thinking again vs. reality.
Sure, a magic city-popping weapon exists and countries all over the world have one. They don't use it because destroying cities with one bomb is rude. Instead, they all destroy cities with lots of little bombs instead. This makes sense because it does.
-
Suspiciously, no one anywhere ever uses them!
Incorrect. Over 2000 nuclear bombs have been used since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests
-
Suspiciously, no one anywhere ever uses them!
Incorrect. Over 2000 nuclear bombs have been used since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests
Drill down the sources and it's just a government saying "dude trust me".
-
Suspiciously, no one anywhere ever uses them!
Incorrect. Over 2000 nuclear bombs have been used since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests
Drill down the sources and it's just a government saying "dude trust me".
You are getting wrapped up in conspiracy theories again. Its what's led to your faulty conclusion that space travel is a hoax and that the Earth is flat.
Sometimes we tend to leverage conspiratorial thinking because it gives is a sense of control or comfort in dealing with a chaotic world or events that we don't have control over.
And so it's likely the reason why you posted this thread.... you may be looking for consensus and comfort in the chaotic and dangerous world we live in.
-
What's this thing called?
(https://media.tenor.com/Pz47Aw2aehsAAAAC/nuke-explosion.gif)
-
Suspiciously, no one anywhere ever uses them!
Incorrect. Over 2000 nuclear bombs have been used since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests
Drill down the sources and it's just a government saying "dude trust me".
Are you kidding? Las Vegas used to host nuclear test viewing parties.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/atomic-tourism-nevada/
-
If nuclear bombs do exist, what proof would it take for you to believe it?
-
What's this thing called?
[snip]
That's called TNT.
You are getting wrapped up in conspiracy theories again. Its what's led to your faulty conclusion that space travel is a hoax and that the Earth is flat.
Sometimes we tend to leverage conspiratorial thinking because it gives is a sense of control or comfort in dealing with a chaotic world or events that we don't have control over.
And so it's likely the reason why you posted this thread.... you may be looking for consensus and comfort in the chaotic and dangerous world we live in.
"You're looking for consensus, that's why you post facts that go against mainstream narratives." What? You're just echoing propaganda you read somewhere in a media article. You clearly don't even understand what the words in it mean. Activate your neurons, my man. If you're going to agree with mainstream ideas, you could at least do it in a way that doesn't make your side look even worse.
Are you kidding? Las Vegas used to host nuclear test viewing parties.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/atomic-tourism-nevada/
"Dude this totally happened, people totally saw the nuke and weren't just treated to a big explosion."
Gee, the only thing that can explodey the big way must be nukes. Can't have big explosions without nukes! ... The absolute state of modern critical thinking skills.
If nuclear bombs do exist, what proof would it take for you to believe it?
If nuclear bombs existed, we'd have nuclear terrorism, we'd have states like Pakistan using them to bully neighbors. Russia would have nuked Ukraine first, not invaded, made a fool of themselves, then threatened to use them later. Ukraine doesn't even have nukes! What, are they afraid NATO will declare war on them? That's a MAD scenario. There is absolutely zero downside to nuking non-nuclear states and yet no one does it. How curious! Humanity must be super restrained, intelligent and moral. It can't be that nukes are made up nonsense!
-
What's this thing called?
[snip]
That's called TNT.
How much TNT?
-
What's this thing called?
[snip]
That's called TNT.
How much TNT?
At least one crate of it.
-
Are you kidding? Las Vegas used to host nuclear test viewing parties.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/atomic-tourism-nevada/
"Dude this totally happened, people totally saw the nuke and weren't just treated to a big explosion."
Gee, the only thing that can explodey the big way must be nukes. Can't have big explosions without nukes! ... The absolute state of modern critical thinking skills.
Right, da goberment likes to blow up a few hundred thousand tons of explosives just to give the Las Vegas tourists a cool light show. They also dispersed some radioactive material into the atmoplane to add to the authenticity. ::)
Seriously, why is this troll thread not in AR or CN?
-
Are you kidding? Las Vegas used to host nuclear test viewing parties.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/atomic-tourism-nevada/
"Dude this totally happened, people totally saw the nuke and weren't just treated to a big explosion."
Gee, the only thing that can explodey the big way must be nukes. Can't have big explosions without nukes! ... The absolute state of modern critical thinking skills.
Right, da goberment likes to blow up a few hundred thousand tons of explosives just to give the Las Vegas tourists a cool light show. They also dispersed some radioactive material into the atmoplane to add to the authenticity. ::)
Seriously, why is this troll thread not in AR or CN?
There's certainly no way the government could afford to just blow things up as a form of propaganda. It's completely impossible, haha, no way that could ever happen. The US government doesn't lie to people. It just doesn't happen.
-
There's certainly no way the government could afford to just blow things up as a form of propaganda. It's completely impossible, haha, no way that could ever happen. The US government doesn't lie to people. It just doesn't happen.
Seriously, why is this troll thread not in AR or CN?
-
Right, da goberment likes to blow up a few hundred thousand tons of explosives just to give the Las Vegas tourists a cool light show.
Yes, that's pretty common in entertainment. Haven't you seen an action movie before?
Seriously, why is this troll thread not in AR or CN?
If you have nothing to say, consider saying nothing.
-
What's this thing called?
[snip]
That's called TNT.
You are getting wrapped up in conspiracy theories again. Its what's led to your faulty conclusion that space travel is a hoax and that the Earth is flat.
Sometimes we tend to leverage conspiratorial thinking because it gives is a sense of control or comfort in dealing with a chaotic world or events that we don't have control over.
And so it's likely the reason why you posted this thread.... you may be looking for consensus and comfort in the chaotic and dangerous world we live in.
"You're looking for consensus, that's why you post facts that go against mainstream narratives." What? You're just echoing propaganda you read somewhere in a media article. You clearly don't even understand what the words in it mean. Activate your neurons, my man. If you're going to agree with mainstream ideas, you could at least do it in a way that doesn't make your side look even worse.
Are you kidding? Las Vegas used to host nuclear test viewing parties.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/atomic-tourism-nevada/
"Dude this totally happened, people totally saw the nuke and weren't just treated to a big explosion."
Gee, the only thing that can explodey the big way must be nukes. Can't have big explosions without nukes! ... The absolute state of modern critical thinking skills.
If nuclear bombs do exist, what proof would it take for you to believe it?
If nuclear bombs existed, we'd have nuclear terrorism, we'd have states like Pakistan using them to bully neighbors. Russia would have nuked Ukraine first, not invaded, made a fool of themselves, then threatened to use them later. Ukraine doesn't even have nukes! What, are they afraid NATO will declare war on them? That's a MAD scenario. There is absolutely zero downside to nuking non-nuclear states and yet no one does it. How curious! Humanity must be super restrained, intelligent and moral. It can't be that nukes are made up nonsense!
What studies or research have you done to conclude that when a crate of TNT is set off, that the blast pattern behaves like that of a mushroom cloud many miles up in the sky?
Did you perform some type of very small scale experiment or did you reference ordinance experts to arrive at your conclusion?
-
What studies or research have you done to conclude that when a crate of TNT is set off, that the blast pattern behaves like that of a mushroom cloud many miles up in the sky?
Did you perform some type of very small scale experiment or did you reference ordinance experts to arrive at your conclusion?
What studies did you perform to say that pattern must be unique to nuclear explosions? You're asking me to provide you evidence that all possible types of explosion don't match that of a nuclear explosion. That's a completely nonsensical way to approach an argument. You've been here for at least like a year by now, shouldn't your ability to form serious arguments be improving?
Since you brought it up, let's talk a bit about non-nuclear explosions. In fact, let's use wikipedia. It's mainstream. You like mainstream things, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud
mushroom clouds generated by explosions were being described centuries before the atomic era
Uh oh, it looks like you're wrong! Wow! Who knew! If only you had the ability to research basic facts before posting then this could have all been avoided. Tragic!
-
What studies or research have you done to conclude that when a crate of TNT is set off, that the blast pattern behaves like that of a mushroom cloud many miles up in the sky?
Did you perform some type of very small scale experiment or did you reference ordinance experts to arrive at your conclusion?
What studies did you perform to say that pattern must be unique to nuclear explosions? You're asking me to provide you evidence that all possible types of explosion don't match that of a nuclear explosion. That's a completely nonsensical way to approach an argument. You've been here for at least like a year by now, shouldn't your ability to form serious arguments be improving?
Since you brought it up, let's talk a bit about non-nuclear explosions. In fact, let's use wikipedia. It's mainstream. You like mainstream things, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud
mushroom clouds generated by explosions were being described centuries before the atomic era
Uh oh, it looks like you're wrong! Wow! Who knew! If only you had the ability to research basic facts before posting then this could have all been avoided. Tragic!
I didn't say mushroom clouds weren't possible with a crate of TNT. I was just asking you what of your own Zetetic observational research have you done to build your own confidence and conclude that with a crate of TNT the observation would be that of a mushroom cloud many miles in the sky?
Again, you'll notice that I never mentioned whether it was possible or not. Unfortunately. It looks like you assumed.
(When an atomic bomb has been detonated, it has been observed to look like that of a mushroom cloud many miles high in the sky.)
-
If nuclear bombs do exist, what proof would it take for you to believe it?
If nuclear bombs existed, we'd have nuclear terrorism, we'd have states like Pakistan using them to bully neighbors. Russia would have nuked Ukraine first, not invaded, made a fool of themselves, then threatened to use them later. Ukraine doesn't even have nukes! What, are they afraid NATO will declare war on them? That's a MAD scenario. There is absolutely zero downside to nuking non-nuclear states and yet no one does it. How curious! Humanity must be super restrained, intelligent and moral. It can't be that nukes are made up nonsense!
So the nuclear explosions of the past didn't happen but you would believe one that happens now?
If Pakistan did set off a nuke how would you know it really happened and wasn't a false flag media operation?
Holy Shit! How do we know anything really happened!?! What if nothing's happening right at this very moment and we don't even know it?
We're fucked! We're fucked! Please send us to CN! End our ignorant suffering! Kill us Kill us!
-
I didn't say mushroom clouds weren't possible with a crate of TNT. I was just asking you what of your own Zetetic observational research have you done to build your own confidence and conclude that with a crate of TNT the observation would be that of a mushroom cloud many miles in the sky?
Again, you'll notice that I never mentioned whether it was possible or not. Unfortunately. It looks like you assumed.
(When an atomic bomb has been detonated, it has been observed to look like that of a mushroom cloud many miles high in the sky.)
I don't subscribe to Zeteticism and I have no idea why you'd make that assumption (or even bring it up!).
No government on this planet claims mushroom clouds appear during air detonations of nuclear weapons. That's entirely a quality of ground detonations. Wow! Once again you have no idea what you're talking about! What a surprise!
So the nuclear explosions of the past didn't happen but you would believe one that happens now?
If Pakistan did set off a nuke how would you know it really happened and wasn't a false flag media operation?
Holy Shit! How do we know anything really happened!?! What if nothing's happening right at this very moment and we don't even know it?
We're fucked! We're fucked! Please send us to CN! End our ignorant suffering! Kill us Kill us!
My point is that if a big bomb that was easy to use existed, governments would use it nonstop. You don't see false flags or "nuclear terrorism" because it turns out lugging around kilotons of TNT is difficult and something you only do when you have access to large deserts or Siberia. It's not that they don't use the bomb because it's big and scary, they don't use it because it's not real.
Think about it. Your argument is that a big very powerful bomb exists that can oppress any non-nuclear nation and governments don't use it. Why? Sure, MAD is the reasoning behind not attacking other nuclear powers. But why not attack a non-nuclear state with it? Why is it okay for Russia to level cities with conventional arms but not okay to do it with a nuke? All I ask is that you take a bit of time to think about the conclusions you're making. Stop having these weird emotional outbreaks and THINK for a bit before you write words and hit the "post" button.
-
I didn't say mushroom clouds weren't possible with a crate of TNT. I was just asking you what of your own Zetetic observational research have you done to build your own confidence and conclude that with a crate of TNT the observation would be that of a mushroom cloud many miles in the sky?
Again, you'll notice that I never mentioned whether it was possible or not. Unfortunately. It looks like you assumed.
(When an atomic bomb has been detonated, it has been observed to look like that of a mushroom cloud many miles high in the sky.)
I don't subscribe to Zeteticism and I have no idea why you'd make that assumption (or even bring it up!).
No government on this planet claims mushroom clouds appear during air detonations of nuclear weapons. That's entirely a quality of ground detonations. Wow! Once again you have no idea what you're talking about! What a surprise!
So the nuclear explosions of the past didn't happen but you would believe one that happens now?
If Pakistan did set off a nuke how would you know it really happened and wasn't a false flag media operation?
Holy Shit! How do we know anything really happened!?! What if nothing's happening right at this very moment and we don't even know it?
We're fucked! We're fucked! Please send us to CN! End our ignorant suffering! Kill us Kill us!
My point is that if a big bomb that was easy to use existed, governments would use it nonstop. You don't see false flags or "nuclear terrorism" because it turns out lugging around kilotons of TNT is difficult and something you only do when you have access to large deserts or Siberia. It's not that they don't use the bomb because it's big and scary, they don't use it because it's not real.
Think about it. Your argument is that a big very powerful bomb exists that can oppress any non-nuclear nation and governments don't use it. Why? Sure, MAD is the reasoning behind not attacking other nuclear powers. But why not attack a non-nuclear state with it? Why is it okay for Russia to level cities with conventional arms but not okay to do it with a nuke? All I ask is that you take a bit of time to think about the conclusions you're making. Stop having these weird emotional outbreaks and THINK for a bit before you write words and hit the "post" button.
Noted that you don't subscribe to Zeteticism. (I brought it up because it's a main tenant of TFES approach).
I didn't ever reference government claims on mushroom clouds. I was just asking you about how you arrived at your own conclusion that when a crate of TNT is detonated that it is capable of forming a mushroom cloud many miles high. If you've confirmed that you don't subscribe to Zeteticism than that would explain why your conclusions aren't based on your own observations but an amalgamation of your own conspiracy theories that you have listed in this thread.
-
I didn't ever reference government claims on mushroom clouds. I was just asking you about how you arrived at your own conclusion that when a crate of TNT is detonated that it is capable of forming a mushroom cloud many miles high.
Where did I say it's only a single crate? Are we about to have a discussion on what "at least" means?
If you've confirmed that you don't subscribe to Zeteticism than that would explain why your conclusions aren't based on your own observations but an amalgamation of conspiracy theories.
This is truly ironic, given that the only reason you believe nuclear bombs exist is because a large group of people keep telling you they do. Nuclear bombs exist in the same way the Enterprise from Star Trek does or the Death Star from Star Wars. Better be careful, don't declare war on Russia, they'll blow up your planet with a moon-sized space station! That's on the same order of delusion as nuclear bombs.
-
I didn't ever reference government claims on mushroom clouds. I was just asking you about how you arrived at your own conclusion that when a crate of TNT is detonated that it is capable of forming a mushroom cloud many miles high.
Where did I say it's only a single crate? Are we about to have a discussion on what "at least" means?
If you've confirmed that you don't subscribe to Zeteticism than that would explain why your conclusions aren't based on your own observations but an amalgamation of conspiracy theories.
This is truly ironic, given that the only reason you believe nuclear bombs exist is because a large group of people keep telling you they do. Nuclear bombs exist in the same way the Enterprise from Star Trek does or the Death Star from Star Wars. Better be careful, don't declare war on Russia, they'll blow up your planet with a moon-sized space station! That's on the same order of delusion as nuclear bombs.
- Stack asked you how much TNT.
- Your reply was: "At least one crate of it"
-
- Stack asked you how much TNT.
- Your reply was: "At least one crate of it"
And? That means there could be *gasp* more than one crate of it! Oh no! I guess we really do have to discuss what "at least" means! Extraordinary. I'm starting to think you're not really interested in an actual argument at all.
Don't worry, I'm sure it's merely coincidence that nuclear explosions are measured in tons of TNT. Don't think too much about it.
-
- Stack asked you how much TNT.
- Your reply was: "At least one crate of it"
And? That means there could be *gasp* more than one crate of it! Oh no! I guess we really do have to discuss what "at least" means! Extraordinary. I'm starting to think you're not really interested in an actual argument at all.
"At least one crate of it" also implies there could just be one crate if it.
-
Think about it. Your argument is that a big very powerful bomb exists that can oppress any non-nuclear nation and governments don't use it. Why? Sure, MAD is the reasoning behind not attacking other nuclear powers. But why not attack a non-nuclear state with it? Why is it okay for Russia to level cities with conventional arms but not okay to do it with a nuke? All I ask is that you take a bit of time to think about the conclusions you're making. Stop having these weird emotional outbreaks and THINK for a bit before you write words and hit the "post" button.
lol...
The reason they don't do it is because the residual radioactive stink would fuck up things far outside the intended target. Not to mention the fact that all the other nuclear weapons rights advocates would start shooting the place up with their weapons fucking the place up even more.
Your post is a reflection on you. YOU would use a nuke if you had one. YOU can't imagine having one and not using it. YOU don't see any diff between nukes and conventional weapons. That's just who you are.
The rest of us have to work to keep people like you from getting into power.
-
Why is it okay for Russia to level cities with conventional arms but not okay to do it with a nuke?
Who (other than Russia) said that it's okay for Russia to level cities with conventional arms? ???
-
"At least one crate of it" also implies there could just be one crate if it.
with that in mind, your IQ is at least 40.
-
"At least one crate of it" also implies there could just be one crate if it.
with that in mind, your IQ is at least 40.
Sure Pete. Whatever you say.
-
Sure Pete. Whatever you say.
Damn, I may yet turn out to be wrong!
-
Somethin fucky was happening in the atmosphere around the 50’s though
https://www.radiocarbon.com/carbon-dating-bomb-carbon.htm
-
No government on this planet claims mushroom clouds appear during air detonations of nuclear weapons. That's entirely a quality of ground detonations. Wow! Once again you have no idea what you're talking about! What a surprise!
There was this one. Check out the mushroom cloud 18k' up...(1:18 mark):
There is a countdown; 18,500 feet above them, the missile is detonated and blows up. Which means, these men intentionally stood directly underneath an exploding 2-kiloton nuclear bomb. One of them, at the key moment (he's wearing sunglasses), looks up. You have to see this to believe it.
(https://i.imgur.com/p1LIeXi.gif)
https://youtu.be/BlE1BdOAfVc
-
All those people who suffered or died from the radiation after Hiroshima must feel pretty silly.
https://hibakushastories.org/
This thread has to be a troll. At best it’s an argument from incredulity, which is no argument at all.
-
"At least one crate of it" also implies there could just be one crate if it.
I don't think it implies it as much as it explicitly states it. Put it this way: I didn't exclude the possibility that there is only one crate of it, I did, however, include the possibility of there being more.
lol...
The reason they don't do it is because the residual radioactive stink would fuck up things far outside the intended target. Not to mention the fact that all the other nuclear weapons rights advocates would start shooting the place up with their weapons fucking the place up even more.
That's funny, because modern thermonuclear fusion weapons supposedly don't have any radioactive fallout. Are you telling me that your belief in nuclear weapons requires that you simultaneously disagree with governments on how they function? Beautiful.
Your post is a reflection on you. YOU would use a nuke if you had one. YOU can't imagine having one and not using it. YOU don't see any diff between nukes and conventional weapons. That's just who you are.
Oh geez, it's just me, I'm evil! Good thing nations don't invade each other and mow down thousands of people with artillery for no conceivable reason.
Seriously, this is the best you could do? You're telling me governments like Pakistan, Russia, and the US are just good people with such good moral standing they can't imagine using a nuclear bomb to kill people? Good god man, I've seen people eat up by propaganda before but this is just sad.
The rest of us have to work to keep people like you from getting into power.
Now this is what I call projection. I like how quickly this went from "how dare you question our leaders" to "you're evil to question our leaders!"
All those people who suffered or died from the radiation after Hiroshima must feel pretty silly.
https://hibakushastories.org/
This thread has to be a troll. At best it’s an argument from incredulity, which is no argument at all.
Oh no, a website of stories and pictures! My argument is obliterated! No way I can stand up to stories and pictures!
I guess if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, they are currently radioactive wastelands that glow in the dark. No one can live there!
Except, oh my, they aren't! Millions of people live there! And they don't glow in the dark at all! What a travesty.
-
Oh no, a website of stories and pictures! My argument is obliterated!
You don't have an argument.
And yes, it's stories and pictures of people who lived through it. I'd say that's better evidence than your argument from incredulity.
I guess if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, they are currently radioactive wastelands that glow in the dark. No one can live there!
It would take you 5 minutes to look up stuff like this and find out about the short half-lives of many of radioactive particles which were created and the way radioactive materials were removed during the rebuilding.
-
You don't have an argument.
And yes, it's stories and pictures of people who lived through it. I'd say that's better evidence than your argument from incredulity.
It's propaganda from almost 100 years ago.
It would take you 5 minutes to look up stuff like this and find out about the short half-lives of many of radioactive particles which were created and the way radioactive materials were removed during the rebuilding.
And yet the claimed nuclear test sites are still radioactive because of the bombs. So, which truth is it? Radioactive fallout lasts a long time or mysteriously vanishes in a short time with simple cleanup? It's almost like people are making things up as they go and can't get their propaganda straight!
-
It's propaganda from almost 100 years ago.
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)
And yet the claimed nuclear test sites are still radioactive because of the bombs. So, which truth is it?
Some are, some aren't. Depends on the type of test, whether it was above ground or below, how powerful the bomb was.
It's almost like you don't understand that different types of radiation have different half lives and that different tests produce different types and amounts of radiation.
Again, this stuff doesn't take long to look up.
-
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!!!!!!
This sort of argumentation style was seen as illogical by the Greeks a couple thousand years ago. Please stop keeping it on life support.
And yet the claimed nuclear test sites are still radioactive because of the bombs. So, which truth is it?
Some are, some aren't. Depends on the type of test, whether it was above ground or below, how powerful the bomb was.
It's almost like you don't understand that different types of radiation have different half lives and that different tests produce different types and amounts of radiation.
Again, this stuff doesn't take long to look up.
"the qualities of my delusion magically change as the narrative requires!" I see, truly fascinating. Tell me more about your expansive knowledge of nuclear physics and what the half-life values of various elements are. Please, get into excruciating detail. Don't be shy, stop trying to offload this with a "do your own research" gag. It's almost as if you don't actually know what you're talking about (and you're wrong, to boot!).
-
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!
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
I don't think you're a liar, Ron, I just think you haven't thought about the possible explanations. I think you've been lied to by other people over a very long time. Don't act so incredulous in defense of their lies.
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
So you don't actually know how modern thermonuclear weapons work, then? Perhaps this infographic from the very same wikipedia article you obviously read will be helpful to revisit?
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJWxKhg9/Screen-Shot-2022-10-10-at-4-30-08-PM.png)
-
And yet the claimed nuclear test sites are still radioactive because of the bombs. So, which truth is it? Radioactive fallout lasts a long time or mysteriously vanishes in a short time with simple cleanup? It's almost like people are making things up as they go and can't get their propaganda straight!
1945: 1 Nagasaki
1945: 1 Hiroshima
Total: 2
Between 1946 and 1958, there were 23 nuclear devices detonated at various spots on, within, above, or beneath Bikini Atoll.
Between 1951 and 1992 a total of 928 nuclear tests were conducted at the NTS (Nevada), 828 of which were underground.
Total: 951
- Hiroshima bomb 15 kilotons TNT equivalent
- Nagasaki bomb 25 kilotons TNT equivalent
- By end of 1962 the total of all atmospheric tests had risen from the 1951 value of 0.6 million tonnes of TNT equivalent to about 500 million tonnes equivalent.
-
This thread has to be a troll. At best it’s an argument from incredulity, which is no argument at all.
Of course it's a troll thread. But since Rushy is a mod, no one will move this thread to AR or CN where it belongs.
-
So, the only proof you would accept for the existence nuclear weapons is for you to be involved in a nuclear blast.
Your line of reasoning in this thread could be applied to anything. Take the title of the thread and replace the words 'nuclear weapons' with any other words.
Have you ever seen Australia? Or maybe a manta ray? Does uranium exist? Have you ever actually handled uranium? What about a directed energy weapon? Certainly the fake existence of large sea going mammals called whales is part of a liberal conspiracy. It's all photoshopped bullshit.
It's a good thing we have you here to explain what's real and what's not.
This thread is rife with troll stink!!
We all belong in CN!!!
Throw us in the pit!!!
-
Before:
(https://i.ibb.co/9hxGbVy/Mk17.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Mfz9cGP)
After:
(https://i.ibb.co/sRcKjCx/mushroom-cloud001.webp) (https://ibb.co/MSKcnfw)
-
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).
I have provided some, as have others.
There's 25,000 tons of evidence they exist. They have been used in warfare within living memory (just).
There have been lots of tests of other, more powerful weapons since.
A lot of this is on film and there is a radiation impact of these weapons, not to mention a power, which is not found in conventional weapons.
You are simply dismissing it all as fake. You can do that about anything.
Kangaroos don't exist.
Tell me you've seen one, I'll call you a liar.
Show me a photo or film of one, I'll tell you it's CGI.
Take me to the zoo to see one, I'll say it's an animatronic.
See? Easy to believe, or not believe, whatever you like if you only accept evidence which confirms to your world view and dismiss as fake anything which does not. All you're left with is an argument from incredulity.
You assert without evidence that the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "just firebombing".
I'm interested how you think that would have worked given Little Boy was dropped from a single plane and had the equivalent power of 25,000 tons of TNT.
And when I point out that a lot of people died or got ill from radiation poisoning, not something you'd expect from "firebombing", you just say that had nuclear weapons been used then the cities would be "radioactive wastelands".
It would have taken you 5 minutes to look that up and find out about half lives, how radioactive material was removed during rebuilding and how different types of bombs emit different types of radioactive material.
Me: nuclear bombs don't exist
You: you can't prove that they don't!!!!!!
That isn't how this conversation has gone. It's gone:
You: "Nuclear bombs don't exist"
Everyone: "What the utter shit are you talking about? They dropped 2 in WWII"
You: "Nuh-uh! That was just firebombing"
Everyone: "Citation needed... And there was a shit load of nuclear tests after that. Here's some film of people watching one"
You: "Faaaake! That's just TNT"
Me: "Citation needed... And what about all the people who got ill or died from the radiation?"
You: "Aha! Then why doesn't Hiroshima glow in the dark. Gotcha!!"
Me: " That really isn't how this works, just look it up."
I'm not asking you to prove that Nuclear weapons don't exist. But you do have to show some evidence to back up your assertions. All you've done right now is made a load of claims without providing any evidence for them. You've dismissed all evidence shown to you as fake. Your entire argument is "Nuclear weapons don't exist and my evidence for that is I don't believe they do. All evidence for nuclear weapons is fake or propaganda".
Compelling...
-
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!"
So, the only proof you would accept for the existence nuclear weapons is for you to be involved in a nuclear blast.
It seems for you to believe they exist no one needs to provide you anything at all.
Your line of reasoning in this thread could be applied to anything. Take the title of the thread and replace the words 'nuclear weapons' with any other words.
That's true, there are many other things the government lies about as well. Remember that time America went to war with an entire country just a little over a decade ago over Weapons Of Mass Destruction that turned out to not exist? I'm sure you would argue that they do, we just can't provide evidence of it or find them in any way. It sounds like you love to believe in things no one can prove!
Have you ever seen Australia? Or maybe a manta ray? Does uranium exist? Have you ever actually handled uranium? What about a directed energy weapon? Certainly the fake existence of large sea going mammals called whales is part of a liberal conspiracy. It's all photoshopped bullshit.
Yes to all of these except seeing Australia. I'm not entirely convinced Australia exists, but that's beside the current topic. Is this the best you can do? Make assumptions about me personally? Also, funny that you say "liberal conspiracy". You'll find most regulars here aren't politically to the right (if you're using the American version of "liberal", you might not be!). Regardless, even if you're using the more open minded version of "liberal", it's telling that your brain operates entirely on "my side vs their side" philosophy. Americans can't help to bring up politics in everything they do because they have been trained to think of politics as a sports team.
It's a good thing we have you here to explain what's real and what's not.
I'm just pointing out that a lot of people take something being "real" for granted without questioning it or thinking about it. No one here seems to be able to prove something is real despite constantly saying it is so. It's a running theme with RE'ers.
All you've done right now is made a load of claims without providing any evidence for them.
Ironic.
And yet the claimed nuclear test sites are still radioactive because of the bombs. So, which truth is it? Radioactive fallout lasts a long time or mysteriously vanishes in a short time with simple cleanup? It's almost like people are making things up as they go and can't get their propaganda straight!
1945: 1 Nagasaki
1945: 1 Hiroshima
Total: 2
Between 1946 and 1958, there were 23 nuclear devices detonated at various spots on, within, above, or beneath Bikini Atoll.
Between 1951 and 1992 a total of 928 nuclear tests were conducted at the NTS (Nevada), 828 of which were underground.
Total: 951
- Hiroshima bomb 15 kilotons TNT equivalent
- Nagasaki bomb 25 kilotons TNT equivalent
- By end of 1962 the total of all atmospheric tests had risen from the 1951 value of 0.6 million tonnes of TNT equivalent to about 500 million tonnes equivalent.
Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all. It's kind of like how ghosts mysteriously stopped haunting places as soon as everyone had smartphones.
-
No one here seems to be able to prove something is real despite constantly saying it is so. It's a running theme with RE'ers.
How does one prove anything? Outside of mathematical theorems nothing can be proven in the strictest sense.
Prove kangeroos exist. Go on.
Any evidence you present I can dismiss as fake or wrong if I'm determined enough to.
And then, as you continue to let kangaroos loose in my house, I can dismiss them all as animatronic fakes while shouting "See! You couldn't prove it!"
This is not an honest way of enquiring about anything.
The best we can do on pretty much any topic we don't have direct experience of is to look at the evidence.
And the evidence for nuclear weapons existing is overwhelming.
The physics of them is well understood - if the claim was that an invisibility ray existed which could zap things invisible then one would probably pause to consider how the hell that would work.
They have been used in war in living memory, there are many testimonies from survivors and accounts of radiation sicknesses and deaths. Some of those survivors are still alive.
The blast radius and level of destruction is not something any conventional weapon I'm aware of can achieve. As I said it was the equivalent of 25,000 tons of TNT.
There have been many nuclear tests since WWII and a lot of people who witnessed them. Again, the radiation effects of this have been measured in in some places persist and there are numerous photos and videos of these tests.
So...your only argument here is one of incredulity. That seems to be based on why they aren't used all the time if they exist?
I guess because they are incredibly destructive - most are significantly more powerful than the ones dropped in WWII. So there's the whole MAD thing.
And they have a significant radiation impact. Sure, Russia could drop one on Ukraine as the latter don't have nukes, but that would surely risk retaliation from The West.
And if they don't exist then why is Putin waving round his nuclear willy anyway. He surely knows they don't exist, our powers that be know that too and he must know we know that, so why make such an empty threat?
To say there's "no evidence" they exist is ludicrous. There's absolutely loads of evidence. If you want to dismiss it all then fine and rely on your personal incredulity then fine, I guess. But then going "Aha! See? You can't prove it!" is not the gotcha you think it is.
-
And if they don't exist then why is Putin waving round his nuclear willy anyway.
If you don't give me your lunch money, I will remotely poke your eyes out using NuBully™ technology. It pokes your eyes out remotely, from the comfort of my desk. It really exists, and I'm gonna use it any moment now. Oooooh, I've opened the command line - I'm gonna do it, I'm totally typing it in!!!!
Give me your lunch money, or else!
You might notice that nobody gave in to Putin's very scary demands. It matches your narrative quite neatly.
-
I think the real point of this thread (besides the fact that Rushy loves to troll) is that you will not convince the willfully ignorant of anything they don't want to believe.
If someone doesn't want to believe in kangaroos and they have no friends or connections in the outside world, no amount of photos or DNA samples will convince them.
I have connections in the military, medical industry, petroleum industry. I have friends all over the world, some in Australia who have actually seen a kangaroo. So when a conspiracy freak on the internet tries to convince me that kangaroos don't exist, he's going to have to tell me that my friend has been lying all these years.
I have informational resources all over the planet. When my government is lying to me, I have no problem finding out. They are corrupt and incompetent buffoons that couldn't keep their most top secret program a secret even with unlimited budget and no oversight.
Kangaroos live!
-
And yet the claimed nuclear test sites are still radioactive because of the bombs. So, which truth is it? Radioactive fallout lasts a long time or mysteriously vanishes in a short time with simple cleanup? It's almost like people are making things up as they go and can't get their propaganda straight!
1945: 1 Nagasaki
1945: 1 Hiroshima
Total: 2
Between 1946 and 1958, there were 23 nuclear devices detonated at various spots on, within, above, or beneath Bikini Atoll.
Between 1951 and 1992 a total of 928 nuclear tests were conducted at the NTS (Nevada), 828 of which were underground.
Total: 951
- Hiroshima bomb 15 kilotons TNT equivalent
- Nagasaki bomb 25 kilotons TNT equivalent
- By end of 1962 the total of all atmospheric tests had risen from the 1951 value of 0.6 million tonnes of TNT equivalent to about 500 million tonnes equivalent.
Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all. It's kind of like how ghosts mysteriously stopped haunting places as soon as everyone had smartphones.
There's a reason for that...
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) – UNODA
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibits “any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion” anywhere in the world. The treaty was opened for signature in September 1996, and has been signed by 186 nations and ratified by 176.
-
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.
-
Seriously though, has anybody here ever actually seen a nuclear bomb?
-
As a former RAF nuclear bomber technician, yes, I've seen nuclear bombs. They are pointy at one end, and have fins at the blunt end. Fortunately, I've never seen a nuclear explosion, however.
I've also seen conventional high explosive bombs. They are also pointy at one end, fins, etc. Unfortunately I've never seen one of those explode either, but have spoken to friends who have seen them explode.
I've also seen air-to-air missiles. They are kind of bomb-shaped (pointy, fins etc), but much, much thinner. Fortunately, I HAVE seen missiles fire and explode.
On the basis that I have witnessed the function of missiles, been assured of the function of conventional bombs, and personally seen nuclear bombs, I have every reason to believe that they will explode in a nuclear manner as described in the brochure, should we decide to smite our enemies in such a manner.
-
As a former RAF nuclear bomber technician, yes, I've seen nuclear bombs. They are pointy at one end, and have fins at the blunt end.
Well if that’s not enough to satisfy Rushy then I don’t know what is.
-
Seriously though, has anybody here ever actually seen a nuclear bomb?
Of course not.
-
I think that the reason why evil governments do not use nuclear weapons is the same reason for which they do not use "at least one crate of TNT".
-
There's a reason for that...
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) – UNODA
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibits “any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion” anywhere in the world. The treaty was opened for signature in September 1996, and has been signed by 186 nations and ratified by 176.
Oh geez, my bad! I didn't realize countries must obey treaties like they are laws of physics! Someone better tell Russia they signed a treaty saying they wouldn't invade Ukraine, they must have forgotten!
As a former RAF nuclear bomber technician, yes, I've seen nuclear bombs. They are pointy at one end, and have fins at the blunt end. Fortunately, I've never seen a nuclear explosion, however.
I've also seen conventional high explosive bombs. They are also pointy at one end, fins, etc. Unfortunately I've never seen one of those explode either, but have spoken to friends who have seen them explode.
I've also seen air-to-air missiles. They are kind of bomb-shaped (pointy, fins etc), but much, much thinner. Fortunately, I HAVE seen missiles fire and explode.
On the basis that I have witnessed the function of missiles, been assured of the function of conventional bombs, and personally seen nuclear bombs, I have every reason to believe that they will explode in a nuclear manner as described in the brochure, should we decide to smite our enemies in such a manner.
Totally, my dude. I've seen nuclear bombs too. They're super scary and very real. You see, what you really saw was just a big bomb-shaped object and was told it was nuclear. The military enjoys lying to people, especially their own people.
I think that the reason why evil governments do not use nuclear weapons is the same reason for which they do not use "at least one crate of TNT".
I'd imagine most conventional weapons used in warfare are equivalent to one or more crates of TNT.
As a former RAF nuclear bomber technician, yes, I've seen nuclear bombs. They are pointy at one end, and have fins at the blunt end.
Well if that’s not enough to satisfy Rushy then I don’t know what is.
If random nobodies saying they "totally saw a nuclear bomb" was enough to convince me then I'd believe quite literally anything. I'd be more likely to believe a man saying he saw aliens. What Duncan said was the equivalent of "I saw aliens" except what he saw was a box that said "aliens inside" on it. It's sad.
Seriously though, has anybody here ever actually seen a nuclear bomb?
Notice that the best anyone can do is say they saw a regular looking bomb except it was labeled as the scary do-not-actually-use version.
-
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?
-
There's a reason for that...
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) – UNODA
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibits “any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion” anywhere in the world. The treaty was opened for signature in September 1996, and has been signed by 186 nations and ratified by 176.
Oh geez, my bad! I didn't realize countries must obey treaties like they are laws of physics! Someone better tell Russia they signed a treaty saying they wouldn't invade Ukraine, they must have forgotten!
Nice strawman.
You wrote: "Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all."
Like it was some mystery that testing stopped which somehow must mean that nukes don't exist. When in fact, there is no mystery. Whether nations abide by the treaties is neither here nor there. The point is, the treaties are what stopped testing...So far...
-
What Duncan said was the equivalent of "I saw aliens" except what he saw was a box that said "aliens inside" on it.
No. That's a false equivalence.
Because aliens don't exist. Or not in a "little green man" kind, who regularly visits earth and could conceivably be found in a box. So him claiming to see one would not be credible and would require some compelling evidence.
What Duncan said was the equivalent of "I went to the zoo and saw a kangaroo", or to continue your line of nonsense, he actually only saw the enclosure because they were out sleeping in the back. But kangaroos exist, and they can often be seen in zoos. So that statement is perfectly credible in the context of the circumstances described. If he said he saw one in the street then if that street was in the US or UK then, again, that would seem less likely.
You're trying to pretend he's saying that he went to the zoo and saw a unicorn. That is not credible because unicorns don't exist.
But kangaroos do, as do nuclear weapons. So seeing one is perfectly credible in the right circumstances.
You have provided no evidence for any of your assertions so all you're left with is an argument from incredulity.
As Roundy said, this is clearly a CN thread.
-
I think that the reason why evil governments do not use nuclear weapons is the same reason for which they do not use "at least one crate of TNT".
I'd imagine most conventional weapons used in warfare are equivalent to one or more crates of TNT.
Whatever weapons were used in the video that Stack posted (or anywhere where we've seen a huge mushroom cloud forming) were obviously very destructive, but we do not see them being used in modern conflicts.
You said that it was TNT so I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you accept that the videos of mushroom clouds are real. You just don't believe that they were caused by nuclear weapons.
They were caused by some kind of weapon, though, which should still be available to governments. For whatever reason, it is clear that governments are not willing to resort to the use of such destructive force as otherwise they would already have done so.
My point is that the fact that nuclear weapons are not used today is not proof that they do not exist unless you also do not accept that the videos of the mushroom clouds are real.
-
I think that the reason why evil governments do not use nuclear weapons is the same reason for which they do not use "at least one crate of TNT".
I'd imagine most conventional weapons used in warfare are equivalent to one or more crates of TNT.
Whatever weapons were used in the video that Stack posted (or anywhere where we've seen a huge mushroom cloud forming) were obviously very destructive, but we do not see them being used in modern conflicts.
You said that it was TNT so I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you accept that the videos of mushroom clouds are real. You just don't believe that they were caused by nuclear weapons.
They were caused by some kind of weapon, though, which should still be available to governments. For whatever reason, it is clear that governments are not willing to resort to the use of such destructive force as otherwise they would already have done so.
My point is that the fact that nuclear weapons are not used today is not proof that they do not exist unless you also do not accept that the videos of the mushroom clouds are real.
Nukes are used underground for mining operations. Although aerial use of them above ground is rarely used anymore.
That doesn't mean that above ground nukes DON'T happen.
-
I never claimed that they don't happen.
-
I never claimed that they don't happen.
Me neither, I never claimed anything in fact.
All I'm saying is what I know about atom bombs, nukes, and hydrogen bombs.
-
Nice strawman.
You wrote: "Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all."
Like it was some mystery that testing stopped which somehow must mean that nukes don't exist. When in fact, there is no mystery. Whether nations abide by the treaties is neither here nor there. The point is, the treaties are what stopped testing...So far...
It's not a strawman, it's pointing out that treaties are meaningless. The tests stopped because governments knew it's too difficult to lie about them in $current_year. They are better off just saying "noooo we don't test anything anymore". Treaties don't mean anything to anyone and bringing them up is quite frankly hilarious.
What Duncan said was the equivalent of "I went to the zoo and saw a kangaroo", or to continue your line of nonsense, he actually only saw the enclosure because they were out sleeping in the back.
It's more like an enclosure marked "kangaroos" in a zoo, but doesn't contain any, never does, and no zoos anywhere ever seem to have them (despite you searching for them repeatedly!). Surely you'd think something is going on?
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.
They were caused by some kind of weapon, though, which should still be available to governments. For whatever reason, it is clear that governments are not willing to resort to the use of such destructive force as otherwise they would already have done so.
My point is that the fact that nuclear weapons are not used today is not proof that they do not exist unless you also do not accept that the videos of the mushroom clouds are real.
The point is that the mushroom clouds in those videos weren't caused by a relatively small, easily portable device. Those were scare tactics and propaganda videos from many decades ago. We wanted to scare the Soviets out of advancing further into Europe and it worked. The end.
Have you seen a MOAB before? It's a really big conventional bomb likened to a "mini-nuke". America used one of them in Iraq. It has (according to wikipedia) a blast of 11 tons of TNT. Here's where it gets interesting: supposedly America has tactical nukes of equivalent yield that could have been used in its place. Why not? They are more portable, more energy efficient, hell, they're even cheaper! Why not use them? If the answer is "radiation", well then, how much radiation does a small tactical nuclear bomb actually give off? If radiation is such a big deal, why do the armed forces continue to use depleted uranium shells?
The supposed reasoning for decisions of the military to not use nuclear weapons and their actual behavior do not line up.
-
"We wanted to scare the soviets out of advancing further into Europe."
Actually, when they heard that Ronald Reagan was shot, they started advancing from Ukraine to try and takeover west Europe.
They only retreated when they heard Ronald was alive.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Closest thing I found, Rushy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fe0u8sgChc
-
Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?
-
Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?
Can you prove they're not just burning clean coal?
-
Closest thing I found, Rushy.
[video snipped]
This is nothing other than evidence that big explosions exist.
Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?
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.
-
But kangaroos do, as do nuclear weapons. So seeing one is perfectly credible in the right circumstances.
When I see a kangaroo, it acts as a kangaroo and is identifiable as a kangaroo in its unique physical characteristics.
Nothing Duncan described as what he claimed to be a nuclear bomb was unique. He described no particular personal acts he committed to verify the veracity of his claim.
In short, you continue to write nothing but a bunch of fluff in support of the original fluff.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I guess an elementary school field trip is a "good reason."
-
Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?
Can you prove they're not just burning clean coal?
Why are you referencing clean coal / how do you know clean coal exists?
-
Nice strawman.
You wrote: "Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all."
Like it was some mystery that testing stopped which somehow must mean that nukes don't exist. When in fact, there is no mystery. Whether nations abide by the treaties is neither here nor there. The point is, the treaties are what stopped testing...So far...
It's not a strawman, it's pointing out that treaties are meaningless. The tests stopped because governments knew it's too difficult to lie about them in $current_year. They are better off just saying "noooo we don't test anything anymore". Treaties don't mean anything to anyone and bringing them up is quite frankly hilarious.
After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.
-
Do you believe that boiling water is the same thing as blowing up cities?
If you understand the physics involved, then you would realize that the two are, indeed, very similar. The biggest difference is the reaction rate.
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.
Ah, so you don't understand the physics involved. Good to know.
-
No. That's a false equivalence.
Because aliens don't exist.
"A random person claiming that they totally saw X is a good argument for the existence of X, but only if I believe X exists." - AATW, unironically.
-
No. That's a false equivalence.
Because aliens don't exist.
"A random person claiming that they totally saw X is a good argument for the existence of X, but only if I believe X exists." - AATW, unironically.
Nice straw man.
It’s not a good argument for the existence of X. But given that X exists, someone claiming to have seen X is credible, if they claim to have seen it in a credible context.
Why isn’t this thread in CN? It’s CN, non?
-
Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?
Can you prove they're not just burning clean coal?
Why are you referencing clean coal / how do you know clean coal exists?
Can you prove it doesn't? ???
-
Nice strawman.
You wrote: "Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all."
Like it was some mystery that testing stopped which somehow must mean that nukes don't exist. When in fact, there is no mystery. Whether nations abide by the treaties is neither here nor there. The point is, the treaties are what stopped testing...So far...
It's not a strawman, it's pointing out that treaties are meaningless. The tests stopped because governments knew it's too difficult to lie about them in $current_year. They are better off just saying "noooo we don't test anything anymore". Treaties don't mean anything to anyone and bringing them up is quite frankly hilarious.
After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.
Witlf?
How, pray tell, does concocting a lie in order to cover the original lie, go against or negate his argument?
-
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!
After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.
The requirements for keeping up the act extended beyond their ability to do so. If you fire off a "nuke" in today's society, some university student's shitty cubesat is now high enough resolution to call bullshit on it (which is why it now very mysteriously doesn't happen!). Like I said before, it's similar to how haunted houses are allergic to smartphones.
Do you believe that boiling water is the same thing as blowing up cities?
If you understand the physics involved, then you would realize that the two are, indeed, very similar. The biggest difference is the reaction rate.
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.
Ah, so you don't understand the physics involved. Good to know.
Markjo the nuclear physicist, everyone! He understands nuclear bombs and reactors. You don't. Bow to his knowledge (which isn't just obvious ignorance!). Markjo, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about, can you stop pretending you do? Why embarrass yourself like this?
No. That's a false equivalence.
Because aliens don't exist.
"A random person claiming that they totally saw X is a good argument for the existence of X, but only if I believe X exists." - AATW, unironically.
Nice straw man.
It’s not a good argument for the existence of X. But given that X exists, someone claiming to have seen X is credible, if they claim to have seen it in a credible context.
Why isn’t this thread in CN? It’s CN, non?
"Given that X exists", you mean your entire argument of whether or not something exists is predisposed on it already existing?
-
Nice straw man.
Sorry, that's literally your argument. If you think it's a strawman, clarify your position.
It’s not a good argument for the existence of X. But given that X exists, someone claiming to have seen X is credible, if they claim to have seen it in a credible context.
Right, so it wasn't a strawman. You think that X exists, you assert it as fact, and therefore someone claiming to see something you already believe in is proof. Proof, I tells ya!
C'mon, AATW, you're not THAT stupid. This discussion is on whether or not X exists. You can't start with the assumption that X does exist and then work your way from there. In a debate on whether nukes exist, you consider someone's "dude I totally saw it" claim to be "credible". Your reasoning for it is "well because they exist duh". Would you be happy if I engaged you in a similar argument? (Hint: no)
Why isn’t this thread in CN? It’s CN, non?
Why? Because you think the argument is stupid? If I took that approach, there'd be no RE threads on this site.
-
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!
-
Nice straw man.
Sorry, that's literally your argument. If you think it's a strawman, clarify your position.
I've clarified my position in all the other posts I've made in this thread which you have mostly ignored.
You think that X exists, you assert it as fact, and therefore someone claiming to see something you already believe in is proof. Proof, I tells ya!
No. Not proof, credible. If I believe X exists then of course I find someone saying they've seen X credible.
So long as they're saying they saw X in a context in which I believe X could be seen of course.
Roundy said, I think somewhat flippantly, "Seriously though, has anybody here ever actually seen a nuclear bomb?"
DuncanDoenitz said "Yes".
And I said, equally flippantly, "Well if that’s not enough to satisfy Rushy then I don’t know what is."
Obviously I was joking. Someone who doesn't believe kangaroos exist isn't going to accept as evidence someone saying they saw one in a zoo.
All I was saying is that for those of us in the real world, someone claiming they saw a kangaroo in a zoo is not an outlandish, fanciful claim.
C'mon, AATW, you're not THAT stupid.
Oh stop! I can't get used to you being nice to me.
This discussion is on whether or not X exists.
Yes, and I have gone in to some detail in other posts about why I'm pretty confident that X exists.
You can't start with the assumption that X does exist and then work your way from there.
I'm not. I believe X exists and I've outlined plenty of evidence backing up that belief in this thread.
Given that evidence, and my belief based on it, someone's claim to have seen X is credible.
Why isn’t this thread in CN? It’s CN, non?
Why? Because you think the argument is stupid? If I took that approach, there'd be no RE threads on this site.
There is no argument. It's a "kangaroos don't exist" thread. Cue a load of people wading in to say "yes they do and this is how we know".
All of which Rushy has basically shouted "FAAAAKE!" to without providing a scrap of evidence.
The whole thread is an argument from incredulity. It's complete nonsense.
-
Obviously I was joking.
Yes. As always when you say something mind-numbingly stupid, you were obviously joking. That's also why you defended your claim several times. It was because you were joking.
Someone who doesn't believe kangaroos exist isn't going to accept as evidence someone saying they saw one in a zoo.
Indeed - but you can show them a kangaroo pretty easily. This is unlike aliens, which are pretty hard to show to others, or nukes, which are apparently even harder.
There is no argument.
"This Argument That's Currently Ongoing Does Not Exist" - AATW, unironically.
-
Obviously I was joking.
Yes. As always when you say something mind-numbingly stupid, you were obviously joking. That's also why you defended your claim several times. It was because you were joking.
Yes, when someone says something mind-numbingly stupid, it usually is a pretty good clue that they were probably joking. You know, like Rushy's mind-numbingly stupid claim that nuclear bombs don't exist.
Maybe you should change your profile name to "Sheldon Cooper" because you both seem to have a lot of difficulty picking up on irony and sarcasm.
-
Yes, when someone says something mind-numbingly stupid, it usually is a pretty good clue that they were probably joking.
Yes, markjo, that is exactly what happens when someone spends 3 posts defending something idiotic and then flips to "well duh I was kidding" out of the sudden.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/738/025/db0.jpg)
-
Yes, when someone says something mind-numbingly stupid, it usually is a pretty good clue that they were probably joking.
Yes, markjo, that is exactly what happens when someone spends 3 posts defending something idiotic and then flips to "well duh I was kidding" out of the sudden.
How many posts has Rushy spent defending his idiotic claim?
-
How many posts has Rushy spent defending his idiotic claim?
You keep claiming it's idiotic; meanwhile, the strongest arguments you guys have so far is AATW's "if someone claims they saw a thing, and I think that thing is real, then that's credible... but if I don't think it's real, then that's not a good argument".
Now, markjo, you know I adore you, but please take your "BAWWW THREAD BAD" posts where they belong.
-
Nice strawman.
You wrote: "Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all."
Like it was some mystery that testing stopped which somehow must mean that nukes don't exist. When in fact, there is no mystery. Whether nations abide by the treaties is neither here nor there. The point is, the treaties are what stopped testing...So far...
It's not a strawman, it's pointing out that treaties are meaningless. The tests stopped because governments knew it's too difficult to lie about them in $current_year. They are better off just saying "noooo we don't test anything anymore". Treaties don't mean anything to anyone and bringing them up is quite frankly hilarious.
After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.
Witlf?
How, pray tell, does concocting a lie in order to cover the original lie, go against or negate his argument?
Because the quote was, "...treaties are meaningless...Treaties don't mean anything to anyone". Rushy's stance is that nations got together and concocted a "treaty" to lie. If treaties are meaningless then how has the treaty to lie been maintained if they are meaningless and don't mean anything to anyone?
-
After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.
The requirements for keeping up the act extended beyond their ability to do so. If you fire off a "nuke" in today's society, some university student's shitty cubesat is now high enough resolution to call bullshit on it (which is why it now very mysteriously doesn't happen!). Like I said before, it's similar to how haunted houses are allergic to smartphones.
University student's had access to shitty cubesats back in 1996 when the treaty was signed? Btw, the last atmospheric nuke test was in 1962.
And if the 1996 nuclear testing treaty was a lie and treaties are meaningless, how has it been maintained for 20+ years?
-
Because the quote was, "...treaties are meaningless...Treaties don't mean anything to anyone". Rushy's stance is that nations got together and concocted a "treaty" to lie. If treaties are meaningless then how has the treaty to lie been maintained if they are meaningless and don't mean anything to anyone?
The point was that treaties are only binding as long as nations think they have something to benefit from them. What precisely is the benefit of not testing your very own nuclear weapons on your own soil? If these weapons were really life and death defense mechanisms, shouldn't they be tested more often? Wouldn't you like them tested more often? If Russia wants to glass America, shouldn't America be a little more confident in the reliability of their defenses? Really makes you think.
After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.
The requirements for keeping up the act extended beyond their ability to do so. If you fire off a "nuke" in today's society, some university student's shitty cubesat is now high enough resolution to call bullshit on it (which is why it now very mysteriously doesn't happen!). Like I said before, it's similar to how haunted houses are allergic to smartphones.
University student's had access to shitty cubesats back in 1996 when the treaty was signed? Btw, the last atmospheric nuke test was in 1962.
And if the 1996 nuclear testing treaty was a lie and treaties are meaningless, how has it been maintained for 20+ years?
The cubesat is just an example... What is it about RE'ers and their inability to grasp the conceptual meaning behind a statement versus its literal meaning? Do you not read literature or something?
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!
-
Obviously I was joking.
Yes. As always when you say something mind-numbingly stupid, you were obviously joking.
Well...yeah.
It was obvious from the context of the thread in which I've posted multiple pieces of evidence for nuclear weapons existing to which Rushy has shouted "FAAAKE!" without providing a scrap of evidence. You really think that I believe the real clincher for Rushy would be someone on the internet saying that've seen one and that they are "pointy at one end, and have fins at the blunt end". That post might as well have said that they're black and round and have the words "NuClEaR BoMb!1!!" on them.
Roundy's post asking if anyone had seen one wasn't serious - as is obvious from some of the replies which have been booted to CN - and neither was mine.
That's also why you defended your claim several times.
I didn't make a claim. What I responded to was Rushy's false equivalence.
but you can show them a kangaroo pretty easily.
Sure. And I can equally easily bend over backwards to call them fake - say they're animatronic or whatever.
That's all Rushy's done in this thread. He's dismissed the testimony of Hiroshima survivors.
He's either ignored the evidence about radiation or shown such ignorance of how radiation works that he is hard to take seriously. All this thread shows is that you can believe, or refuse to believe, pretty much anything if you ignore or dismiss as fake all the evidence which shows you to be wrong. That's all that's going on in this thread.
This is unlike aliens, which are pretty hard to show to others, or nukes, which are apparently even harder.
Sure, but aliens - in the little green man sense, the ones who are visiting us - is not something which everyone believes in. Nuclear weapons...well, I don't think most people would even describe that as a belief any more than people would say they "believe" in kangaroos. Kangaroos just...exist, as do nuclear weapons. The existence on neither of these things is controversial in a way that little green men visiting us is.
"This Argument That's Currently Ongoing Does Not Exist" - AATW, unironically.
It's a complete nonsense argument, which is where this thread belongs. It's an argument from incredulity followed by a Monty Python Argument Sketch of basically ignoring or dismissing all the evidence he's shown while providing none himself. Culminating in him saying, having been shown a bunch of evidence for nuclear weapons:
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).
Come on. This is surely a troll. The above post is Bishopian. A lot of threads with him go like that:
I don't believe X
Here's a bunch of evidence for X
That's all fake. See! There's no evidence! You keep saying you have some but you can't provide it!
There are lots of things in life which we don't or can't have direct experience of. With those things we have to form a view based on evidence. I've never been to Australia but obviously I believe in Australia - I know people from there, I've seen photos and video, I know people who have visited. Is it possible that they're all lying and all the photos and video are fake? In the strictest sense I guess it is. But by that metric how do you really ever know anything?
I hope I never have any direct experience of nuclear weapons, but the evidence they exist is overwhelming.
They're based on physics which is well understood, they've been used in wartime within living memory and there's plenty of film and witnesses to the subsequent tests and a radiation signature which is not found in conventional weapons.
All Rushy's got is a combination of incredulity and claims that if they did exist then <these things> would happen.
But those things are just his opinion, they're not evidence of anything. He's provided no evidence of fakery, no explanation for the radiation stuff other than untrue claims about how Hiroshima should be a glow in the dark nuclear wasteland. If he can't be bothered to look up this stuff and understand why that isn't true then how can he or this thread be taken seriously?
-
Sure, but aliens - in the little green man sense, the ones who are visiting us - is not something which everyone believes in.
You have a strong tendency to describe things you personally believe as things "everyone" believes in. But, of course, that is just a funny joke you're making, and not yet another instance of your character flaws obscuring your ability to think.
The existence on neither of these things is controversial in a way that little green men visiting us is.
To you, and to people you choose to associate with. Then again, you are clearly just joking.
It's a complete nonsense argument, which is where this thread belongs.
To describe your reasoning as "circular" would be an understatement at this point. It's the Ourobouros of logic. You think the thread is bad, and you're so invested in it that you can't even express a coherent thought. Go touch grass, my dude.
I believe in Australia - I know people from there, I've seen photos and video
That's great. So, other than the complete lack of a response, what's the problem with Rushy's request for a reasonable, unedited video? You're acting as if it wasn't made.
You're specifically presenting a video as a standard of evidence you'd consider sensible. So, what gives? Is this another one of your knee-slappers?
If he can't be bothered to look up this stuff and understand why that isn't true then how can he or this thread be taken seriously?
Feel free to not take it seriously and go somewhere else. If you're gonna shit up a thread just because you don't like it, though, that's gonna be a problem.
-
Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?
Can you prove they're not just burning clean coal?
Why are you referencing clean coal / how do you know clean coal exists?
Can you prove it doesn't? ???
Clean coal doesn't exist. It never has.
"Clean coal" was a term developed by government agencies to help further line the pockets of big oil and the inside government agencies that work with them.
You have been told and convinced about clean coal and its various benefits.
-
Markjo the nuclear physicist, everyone! He understands nuclear bombs and reactors. You don't. Bow to his knowledge (which isn't just obvious ignorance!). Markjo, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about, can you stop pretending you do? Why embarrass yourself like this?
Actually, the physics behind nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs really isn't that hard. The engineering and construction are the hard parts.
-
Because the quote was, "...treaties are meaningless...Treaties don't mean anything to anyone". Rushy's stance is that nations got together and concocted a "treaty" to lie. If treaties are meaningless then how has the treaty to lie been maintained if they are meaningless and don't mean anything to anyone?
The point was that treaties are only binding as long as nations think they have something to benefit from them. What precisely is the benefit of not testing your very own nuclear weapons on your own soil? If these weapons were really life and death defense mechanisms, shouldn't they be tested more often? Wouldn't you like them tested more often? If Russia wants to glass America, shouldn't America be a little more confident in the reliability of their defenses? Really makes you think.
There have been 2056 nuke bomb tests. How many more would you prefer?
Yes it does make one think that the benefit is to limit the amout of harmful fallout in the atmosphere, underwater, and in the ground.
After 47 years goverments all of a sudden decided it was too hard to lie? So they all got together and agreed to concoct a treaty to lie? That goes against your argument.
The requirements for keeping up the act extended beyond their ability to do so. If you fire off a "nuke" in today's society, some university student's shitty cubesat is now high enough resolution to call bullshit on it (which is why it now very mysteriously doesn't happen!). Like I said before, it's similar to how haunted houses are allergic to smartphones.
University student's had access to shitty cubesats back in 1996 when the treaty was signed? Btw, the last atmospheric nuke test was in 1962.
And if the 1996 nuclear testing treaty was a lie and treaties are meaningless, how has it been maintained for 20+ years?
The cubesat is just an example... What is it about RE'ers and their inability to grasp the conceptual meaning behind a statement versus its literal meaning? Do you not read literature or something?
What you're writing here is literature?
-
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?
-
For the record, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty of 1996 is not into force yet.
-
Good point. A little more info:
Since the conclusion and opening for signature of the CTBT, nuclear testing has become taboo. Today, even those nuclear-armed states that have not signed or not ratified the CTBT, including India, Israel, and Pakistan, observe nuclear testing moratoriums. Only one country has conducted nuclear test explosions in this century, and even that country—North Korea—halted nuclear testing in 2017. Although the CTBT has not formally entered into force, the treaty has, for now, achieved its primary goal: ending nuclear weapon test explosions.
-
Good point. A little more info:
Since the conclusion and opening for signature of the CTBT, nuclear testing has become taboo. Today, even those nuclear-armed states that have not signed or not ratified the CTBT, including India, Israel, and Pakistan, observe nuclear testing moratoriums. Only one country has conducted nuclear test explosions in this century, and even that country—North Korea—halted nuclear testing in 2017. Although the CTBT has not formally entered into force, the treaty has, for now, achieved its primary goal: ending nuclear weapon test explosions.
This is correct.
Also, regarding the motive for signing such a treaty, the treaty has been signed by lots of countries that do not have nuclear weapons yet so the big powers would push for it because it guarantees that they are the only ones that do have such weapons.
Edit: Just rephrased it for clarity
-
Sure, but aliens - in the little green man sense, the ones who are visiting us - is not something which everyone believes in.
You have a strong tendency to describe things you personally believe as things "everyone" believes in.
Do I? I mean, I've said on here I'm a Christian. In this country that puts me very much in the minority. So no, not really.
I think I've got a pretty good handle on what things are fringe views, what things are pretty much universally accepted and which are matters of debate.
what's the problem with Rushy's request for a reasonable, unedited video?
No problem at all. I don't know if such video exists, but given the level of evidence he has already rejected I'd wonder why that would tip the balance given that "we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered".
As I said, it just doesn't feel like Rushy is arguing in good faith here, especially when he says he is asserting "there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide)." in a thread in which he has been presented a load of evidence and called it all fake without providing any evidence of that.
-
As I said, it just doesn't feel like Rushy is arguing in good faith here, especially when he says he is asserting "there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide)." in a thread in which he has been presented a load of evidence and called it all fake without providing any evidence of that.
It is the few nuclear power militaries who have the evidence. You do not have any evidence yourself and are arguing based on nothing more than your belief.
-
It is the few nuclear power militaries who have the evidence. You do not have any evidence yourself and are arguing based on nothing more than your belief.
If that's so, then why is Rushy asking us for evidence? Haven't the nuclear powered militaries already provided sufficient evidence. Shouldn't the ample documentation of the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be enough evidence to satisfy any reasonable person?
-
It is the few nuclear power militaries who have the evidence. You do not have any evidence yourself and are arguing based on nothing more than your belief.
If that's so, then why is Rushy asking us for evidence? Haven't the nuclear powered militaries already provided sufficient evidence. Shouldn't the ample documentation of the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be enough evidence to satisfy any reasonable person?
Yes, the nuclear power militaries have provided a sufficient amount evidence for the existence of nuclear weapons. They have not provided evidence that they are honest about their evidence, however. For that you only have blind belief.
-
It is the few nuclear power militaries who have the evidence. You do not have any evidence yourself and are arguing based on nothing more than your belief.
If that's so, then why is Rushy asking us for evidence? Haven't the nuclear powered militaries already provided sufficient evidence. Shouldn't the ample documentation of the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be enough evidence to satisfy any reasonable person?
Yes, the nuclear power militaries have provided a sufficient amount evidence for the existence of nuclear weapons. They have not provided evidence that they are honest about their evidence, however. For that you only have blind belief.
So I suppose that all of the lawsuits and government payouts to people who developed cancer from the radioactive fallout from the nuclear bomb tests are part of the cover story too.
https://www.courthousenews.com/downwinder-with-cancer-sues-usa-for-atomic-tests/
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/fallout-from-nuclear-weapons-tests-and-cancer-risks
https://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca
-
Traditional bombs also contaminate the battlefield and also cause cancer - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23779497.2017.1369358
-
Traditional bombs also contaminate the battlefield and also cause cancer - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23779497.2017.1369358
So now you're denying that radioactive fallout was found downwind of the nuclear bomb test sites? ???
-
As I said, it just doesn't feel like Rushy is arguing in good faith here, especially when he says he is asserting "there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide)." in a thread in which he has been presented a load of evidence and called it all fake without providing any evidence of that.
It is the few nuclear power militaries who have the evidence. You do not have any evidence yourself and are arguing based on nothing more than your belief.
Tom.... your above statement applies to TFES Wiki, specifically "The Conspiracy" section. The Conspiracy section is an example of something which is not based on evidence but is based on a belief.
-
It is the few nuclear power militaries who have the evidence.
No it isn't. My first link was to a website of stories from people who survived Hiroshima.
And garygreen provided a link about the radioactive effects of the testing done.
You do not have any evidence yourself and are arguing based on nothing more than your belief.
As I do with anything I cannot directly experience. Which is a lot of things. With most things that's all we can do.
My belief is based on evidence from other people, as above, not just various governments.
What is your position on nuclear weapons and what is that belief based on?
-
Do I? I mean, I've said on here I'm a Christian. In this country that puts me very much in the minority. So no, not really.
I think I've got a pretty good handle on what things are fringe views, what things are pretty much universally accepted and which are matters of debate.
Christ, where do I start with this trainwreck? Do we do logic first, or facts?
Eh, let's do logic: your response is a complete non sequitur. The fact* that you can sometimes identify yourself as a minority does not affect your tendency to misrepresent personal opinions as universal. You do it all the time here.
Now, facts: Going by 2019 ONS data (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/populationestimatesbyethnicgroupandreligionenglandandwales/2019/pdf), approximately 51% of England and Wales is Christian. The British Social Attitudes survey (https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39293/1_bsa36_religion.pdf) uses a slightly different methodology, and arrived at 38% Christian for the UK in 2018. There is considerable debate (https://humanists.uk/2020/07/20/2021-census-to-continue-to-use-leading-religion-question/) surrounding whether how you ask the question affects the results, and early evidence suggests there might be.
So, let's look back at your position: I think I've got a pretty good handle on what things are fringe views, what things are pretty much universally accepted and which are matters of debate. You took an example which doesn't even apply to the discussion, and you managed to botch it. Your "good handle on things" steered you to believe that you're "very much in the minority", where reality would have steered you towards it being "a matter of debate". You're either in the slim majority, or the second-largest group in the country. In either case: not "very much in the minority".
You really are terrible at gauging these things, and you'd do well to account for your biases. We've done this time and time again - you use your gut feeling to make sweeping statements about "everyone", and then it turns out that even the most cursory look through real data immediately overturns it. It is at that point that you usually argue that you "obviously" didn't mean what you actually said.
what's the problem with Rushy's request for a reasonable, unedited video?
No problem at all.
Excellent! I suppose this is where you take a step back and retract your position that he's just screaming "FAAAAKE" and not explaining what he wants? You know, given that he was pretty clear about what he wants and you see "no problem at all" with it?
I'd wonder why that would tip the balance given that "we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered".
And I'd wonder why you decided to snip the "In general" from the beginning of that sentence; or why you'd ignore the very specific question it's answering; or why you'd pretend there's no more context to the answer, like an entire paragraph eliminating any ambiguity from what's being said.
It's not because it completely destroys your very cool quip, is it? Oh, wait, I know - you were "obviously joking".
Again - you're not THAT stupid. A general hesitance to accept random photos found on the Internet by permanoobs does not preclude one from designing an experiment which heavily relies on photographic or video evidence. In fact, both sides of the FE/RE debate use it regularly. You're not actually confused by this, are you?
As I said, it just doesn't feel like Rushy is arguing in good faith here
That's fine - you're entitled to that opinion, and it sounds to me like the best step forward would be to disengage. You're convinced you're arguing with someone who's being insincere - what's the point?
in a thread in which he has been presented a load of evidence
He was mostly provided with hearsay and speculation. You already explained that you only find it "credible" because it supports your preconceived notions. Or, well, you think it's "everyone's" preconceived notions, and you think that somehow changes things.
-
The fact* that you can sometimes identify yourself as a minority does not affect your tendency to misrepresent personal opinions as universal. You do it all the time here.
OK, fine. I'll give you this one. If you claim I tend to do something then me providing a counter example doesn't mean you're wrong. I could have a tendency to do something but not always do it. So fine.
But I do think you're wrong, I don't believe I have that tendency.
One thing you have a "strong tendency" for is to claim I do something without providing any examples. Then when asked for an example you fail to provide one. You've given no examples of me doing what you claim despite asserting I "do it all the time". I don't regard me saying that basically everyone believes in kangaroos or nuclear weapons is an example. I mean...they do don't they?
And let me provide some "alternative facts" around Christianity
From https://faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity.html
Church attendance has declined from 6,484,300 to 3,081,500 (equivalent to a decline from 11.8% to 5.0% of the population).
I'm not talking about "cultural Christianity", yes a lot of people in this country for historical and cultural reasons identify as Christian, I'm talking about practicing Christians. It's a pretty small minority in this country. So no, I didn't "botch it", you're just not talking about the same thing as I am.
It is at that point that you usually argue that you "obviously" didn't mean what you actually said.
I don't know if it was obvious on this occasion. So fine, I meant practicing Christian. I would have thought from other posts on here over time it would have been obvious I'm not just a cultural Christian. There's a difference between someone who "identifies as" a Christian and actively defends Christian beliefs, as I'm sure you've seen me do on here, and someone who, when asked, will check a box on a form marked "Christian" for various cultural and historic reasons but who hasn't stepped into a church for decades.
I suppose this is where you take a step back and retract your position that he's just screaming "FAAAAKE" and not explaining what he wants?
Can't he do both?
He spent quite a lot of time in this thread screaming "FAAAAKE" before, having been asked what level of evidence he'd accept, outlining something.
But given all the things he has screamed "FAAAAKE" at, including videos, I raise an eyebrow at his claim that the particular video he asks for would be enough to satisfy him.
That's fine - you're entitled to that opinion, and it sounds to me like the best step forward would be to disengage. You're convinced you're arguing with someone who's being insincere - what's the point?
Indeed. And I have pretty much disengaged with him in this thread for that exact reason.
He was mostly provided with hearsay and speculation. You already explained that you only find it "credible" because it supports your preconceived notions. Or, well, you think it's "everyone's" preconceived notions, and you think that somehow changes things.
He was presented with videos, witness evidence and data around radiation. He claimed it was all fake without providing any evidence and the radiation stuff from gary I think he just ignored, unless I've missed something. My stuff about radiation was met with silly claims showing a complete ignorance of the subject.
As I said, with a lot of things you have no direct experience of - and I think we can all agree it's a good thing we don't on this topic - the only basis for forming an opinion is assessing the evidence. The existence of nuclear weapons isn't controversial, if Rushy has evidence that Hiroshima was just "firebombing" or that the videos of other explosions posted here were just "crates of TNT" then he's free to present it.
-
One thing you have a "strong tendency" for is to claim I do something without providing any examples.
Yes, that's a fun trick you use - you demand that others do work for you, or else they're wrong.
I don't regard me saying that basically everyone believes in kangaroos or nuclear weapons is an example. I mean...they do don't they?
Kangaroos - probably. Nukes - absolutely not.
And let me provide some "alternative facts" around Christianity
From https://faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity.html
"Alternative facts" is a great way to describe it. You're shown census data and a survey by a reputable academic organisation, and you come back with a YouGov poll (the same source you previously decried untrustworthy when it claimed high numbers of FE believers among the American youth) and some questionable research into church membership and attendance (!= religious beliefs).
I'm talking about practicing Christians.
I see. So, when you said you consider yourself a minority as a Christian, you didn't mean what you said. You were "obviously joking".
I would have thought from other posts on here over time it would have been obvious I'm not just a cultural Christian.
It wasn't even obvious that you'd maintain such an artificial and arbitrary distinction.
There's a difference between someone who "identifies as" a Christian and actively defends Christian beliefs, as I'm sure you've seen me do on here, and someone who, when asked, will check a box on a form marked "Christian" for various cultural and historic reasons but who hasn't stepped into a church for decades.
Yeah, yeah, porridge, sugar, Scotsman. Are you trying to collect all the logical fallacies in this thread? This ain't Pokémon.
Can't he do both?
Of fucking course he can't be simultaneously clearly stating what he wants and not be stating what he wants. Get a grip.
I raise an eyebrow at his claim
OK. Well, since nobody here seems to have reasonable evidence, and is unable to present a better alternative for reasonable standards of evidence... where does this leave us? You think there are no issues with his request, but you keep going "hmmmmmmmmm I wonder if he'd actually accept it 🤔". It's almost as if it was you who's arguing in bad faith, if your endless deflections weren't already proof of that.
That's fine - you're entitled to that opinion, and it sounds to me like the best step forward would be to disengage. You're convinced you're arguing with someone who's being insincere - what's the point?
Indeed. And I have pretty much disengaged with him in this thread for that exact reason.
[As I said, with a lot of things you have no direct experience of - and I think we can all agree it's a good thing we don't on this topic - the only basis for forming an opinion is assessing the evidence.
Yes. It just needs to be, well, presented first. Again, you agreed that his standard is not unreasonable.
The existence of nuclear weapons isn't controversial
To you, personally, and the people you choose to associate with.
if Rushy has evidence that Hiroshima was just "firebombing" or that the videos of other explosions posted here were just "crates of TNT" then he's free to present it.
You're once again fucking up basic logic. You're the ones who claim that X exists. If you point to something as evidence of X, there should be no credible alternative that explains the same phenomenon. As a result, pointing out that your evidence could point to something else than X is sufficient to render it inconclusive.
-
One thing you have a "strong tendency" for is to claim I do something without providing any examples.
Yes, that's a fun trick you use - you demand that others do work for you, or else they're wrong.
It's not a trick. If you make an assertion then it's your job to back it up with evidence.
If you say someone tends to do something and does it "all the time" then it should be pretty easy to find an example.
I see. So, when you said you consider yourself a minority as a Christian, you didn't mean what you said. You were "obviously joking".
I was talking about being a practicing church-going Christian, not just someone who considers themselves one culturally. The distinction absolutely isn't artificial. And church attendance is very much a minority sport in this country.
OK. Well, since nobody here seems to have reasonable evidence
Well, reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. I'd suggest that witness testimony from people who survived the bomb is pretty reasonable, as are the videos of subsequent nuclear tests. And gary has provided some data around the radioactive effects of them. As I said earlier in the thread, the Hiroshima bomb was equivalent to 25,000 tons of TNT. Is it really credible that the US somehow got that amount of TNT to explode? How the shit did they get it there? The Enola Gay was around 30 tonnes. Sure, you can always make an alternative claim, but is it credible? That is also in the eye of the beholder too but I'd suggest that both sides are making a claim:
The mainstream claim is that a nuclear bomb went off in Hiroshima.
Rushy's claim is that it was firebombing.
I'd suggest it's incumbent on both sides to provide evidence for their respective claims. The mainstream evidence is eyewitness testimony and the radiation effects which would not be found in conventional weapons.
Trying to get this vaguely back on what this thread is about:
What is your position on nuclear weapons and what is it based on?
-
What is your position on nuclear weapons and what is it based on?
I'm nowhere near as invested in them as the people here are. I personally have no reason to disbelieve in their existence, but I also wouldn't go crying at someone who'd like to see more evidence, and I guess I'd be mildly curious to see it myself.
My stance is largely based on indifference and the ability to process (at least relatively simple) English.
-
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?
-
The question here is what is ‘evidence’?
Conveniently, Rushy already answered it. You could try addressing his position instead of ignoring it.
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?
Yes, it does. If you're invested in convincing someone they're wrong, you'll probably have to do so on their terms.
-
"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
Okay, a bit late, but let me complement you on your quote mining skills. However, a fission reaction is used to initiate the fusion.
Fusion, unlike fission, is relatively "clean"—it releases energy but no harmful radioactive products or large amounts of nuclear fallout. The fission reactions though, especially the last fission reactions, release a tremendous amount of fission products and fallout.
Also:
The misleading term "hydrogen bomb" was already in wide public use before fission product fallout from the Castle Bravo test in 1954 revealed the extent to which the design relies on fission as well.
-
Well, reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. I'd suggest that witness testimony from people who survived the bomb is pretty reasonable
Actually those testimonies are not reasonable.
There is one on this page who was 50 meters from the hypocenter of the blast and was knocked back 12 feet, shielded and survived the blast with nothing but a wooden house - https://mpalmer.heresy.is/webnotes/HR/Introduction.html
On this page there are reports of people hearing multiple explosions - https://mpalmer.heresy.is/webnotes/HR/How-done.html
Traditional bombs also contaminate the battlefield and also cause cancer - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23779497.2017.1369358
So now you're denying that radioactive fallout was found downwind of the nuclear bomb test sites? ???
Who found this? A group organized or funded by the US NAVY?
-
Traditional bombs also contaminate the battlefield and also cause cancer - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23779497.2017.1369358
So now you're denying that radioactive fallout was found downwind of the nuclear bomb test sites? ???
Who found this? A group organized or funded by the US NAVY?
Why would the US Navy fund research that would be used as evidence in lawsuits filed by down wind cancer victims against the US government?
Anybody with a decent Geiger counter can probably still find radioactive contamination down wind of the Neva Test Site.
-
Why would the US Navy fund research that would be used as evidence in lawsuits filed by down wind cancer victims against the US government?
Anybody with a decent Geiger counter can probably still find radioactive contamination down wind of the Neva Test Site.
Hiroshima survivors did try suing; they were not able to sue the US government directly and the lawsuits didn't go anywhere - https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/hiroshima-nagasaki/give-me-water/chapter13.html
If there was fallout, it could easily be attributed to nuclear waste included in the bombings - https://mpalmer.heresy.is/webnotes/HR/Fallout.html
-
Why would the US Navy fund research that would be used as evidence in lawsuits filed by down wind cancer victims against the US government?
Anybody with a decent Geiger counter can probably still find radioactive contamination down wind of the Neva Test Site.
Hiroshima survivors did try suing; they were not able to sue the US government directly and the lawsuits didn't go anywhere
But people down wind of the Nevada Test site did sue the US government and their lawsuits did get somewhere.
https://www.cancerbenefits.com/cancer-benefit-programs/nevada-test-site-workers/
-
Seems appropriate…
https://youtu.be/5zabCBnUHLA
-
What's this thing called?
[snip]
That's called TNT.
How much TNT?
At least one crate of it.
Oh yeah. One of those 10 million ton crates of TNT. I still have 3 or 4 of those in my back yard for clearing tree stumps.
You realize (I'm sure you do) that TNT does not explode with enough speed and force to create a mushroom cloud like that, don't you?
-
Oh yeah. One of those 10 million ton crates of TNT. I still have 3 or 4 of those in my back yard for clearing tree stumps.
You realize (I'm sure you do) that TNT does not explode with enough speed and force to create a mushroom cloud like that, don't you?
You realize (I'm sure you do) that pink elephants can fly on the winds of time?
You should really read the things you write before you post. Why did you even bother posting it? Did you think stating the wondrous fanciful tales of your imagination was actually relevant to the thread? I can only assume the answer is yes.
-
Considering all of the recent fearmongering regarding Putin using nuclear weapons, I felt it necessary to remind everyone here that nuclear weapons simply do not exist.
They're not real.
They're made up.
It's a meme.
Seriously, they are nothing other than WWII propaganda that the Allies made up to scare Japan into surrendering and to keep Russia from continuing the war. Then Russia started to claim it also totally had nukes and yet no one ever used them. Suspiciously, no one anywhere ever uses them! Wow! It must be because humanity is so strong willed and moral and definitely not because they don't exist.
You realize (I'm sure you do) that pink elephants can fly on the winds of time?
You should really read the things you write before you post. Why did you even bother posting it? Did you think stating the wondrous fanciful tales of your imagination was actually relevant to the thread? I can only assume the answer is yes.
-
You should really read the things you write before you post. Why did you even bother posting it? Did you think stating the wondrous fanciful tales of your imagination was actually relevant to the thread? I can only assume the answer is yes.
I did. Except for the 10 million ton crates of TNT in my yard (there are only 2). The rest are all facts. Your incredulity does not change that. Sorry.
Also the reality of atomic bombs is a fact. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were also not fire bombed. The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects some time after the detonations. Specifically from the kind of radiation that is released from a nuclear detonation such as gamma and neutron radiation which make up approximately 50% of the energy released. Radiation that is singularly missing from fire bombing. So .. sorry .. you are wrong about that too.
-
Considering all of the recent fearmongering regarding Putin using nuclear weapons, I felt it necessary to remind everyone here that nuclear weapons simply do not exist.
They're not real.
They're made up.
It's a meme.
Seriously, they are nothing other than WWII propaganda that the Allies made up to scare Japan into surrendering and to keep Russia from continuing the war. Then Russia started to claim it also totally had nukes and yet no one ever used them. Suspiciously, no one anywhere ever uses them! Wow! It must be because humanity is so strong willed and moral and definitely not because they don't exist.
You realize (I'm sure you do) that pink elephants can fly on the winds of time?
You should really read the things you write before you post. Why did you even bother posting it? Did you think stating the wondrous fanciful tales of your imagination was actually relevant to the thread? I can only assume the answer is yes.
"no u" is not the powerful comeback you think it is. In the future, if you have nothing meaningful to post, then do not post. I'm not going as far as removing/warning you because it's a response to my post, but I personally consider this to be warn-able low content in the upper forums. I suggest posting epic burns like this in Angry Ranting or Complete Nonsense, where it belongs.
I did. Except for the 10 million ton crates of TNT in my yard (there are only 2). The rest are all facts. Your incredulity does not change that. Sorry.
Also the reality of atomic bombs is a fact. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were also not fire bombed. The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects some time after the detonations. Specifically from the kind of radiation that is released from a nuclear detonation such as gamma and neutron radiation which make up approximately 50% of the energy released. Radiation that is singularly missing from fire bombing. So .. sorry .. you are wrong about that too.
Oh geez, I didn't know someone can simply say "you're wrong!" and then suddenly I'm wrong. Look, in this thread, I've already gone over the points. I asked for evidence which no one can provide (because, coincidentally, it doesn't exist). Did you really come into the thread just to say "you're wrong and I'm right" over and over again until I get bored of replying to you?
For example: "The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects". Marie Curie died of "radiation effects", did someone nuke her, Bill? Was Chernobyl a nuclear bomb all along? The answer is no, it wasn't. Radiation isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb, but you already know that, so why are you bringing it up when I've already pointed it out in the thread?
Perhaps you should read the thread before responding again.
-
Radiation isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb...
In context of bombs, then yes, radiation is most certainly evidence of a nuclear bomb. That is unless you can show that TNT or other conventional bombs produce radiation similar to that expected from nuclear bombs.
-
The World that we originally come from did have nuclear bombs. The World that we are in now, is only a simulation aka a projection of history as we see it happen. So from this point of view in this World nuclear bombs actually do not exist, but what we are seeing has happened for real but is now a projection. You might think this is nonsense, but in the book Alien Assessment of nuclear armed Earth you can find a method to check for yourself that you actually are a in simulation. You can do it within 10 min.
https://man-kindness.blogspot.com/2023/01/Alien-assessmant-nuclear-armed-Earth-disarm.html (https://man-kindness.blogspot.com/2023/01/Alien-assessmant-nuclear-armed-Earth-disarm.html)
-
For example: "The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects". Marie Curie died of "radiation effects", did someone nuke her, Bill?
No. She exposed herself to it by carrying radium around in her pockets.
Was Chernobyl a nuclear bomb all along? The answer is no, it wasn't.
Right. And the result was substantially different than what you get when a bomb is detonated. In the Chernobyl incident radio active substances like cesium 137 and iodine 131 were released.
Radiation isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb, but you already know that, so why are you bringing it up when I've already pointed it out in the thread?
Because you are wrong. There are different types and profiles of radiation release. Atomic/nuclear bombs are unique in the extreme. No other process/event produces a radiation release profile like a nuclear bomb. Nothing.
Perhaps you should read the thread before responding again.
I did. Perhaps you should learn something about nuclear physics.
Go back and read your OP. "It's Fake!" is all it says. No evidence whatsoever. Typical flat earth "theory" there.
-
In context of bombs, then yes, radiation is most certainly evidence of a nuclear bomb. That is unless you can show that TNT or other conventional bombs produce radiation similar to that expected from nuclear bombs.
So, in the world of markjo, dirty bombs don't exist?
No. She exposed herself to it by carrying radium around in her pockets.
Gee, so radiation can come from places other than nukes. Fascinating.
Right. And the result was substantially different than what you get when a bomb is detonated. In the Chernobyl incident radio active substances like cesium 137 and iodine 131 were released.
Right, because actual nuclear accidents involving uranium and plutonium produce different products than what was detected at supposed "nuclear bomb" sites. Now we're getting somewhere.
Because you are wrong. There are different types and profiles of radiation release. Atomic/nuclear bombs are unique in the extreme. No other process/event produces a radiation release profile like a nuclear bomb. Nothing.
And this is where you encounter the propaganda. You see, you haven't verified that a nuclear bomb actually produced any of the recorded substances. All you can do is take the government's records at face value. You can go to Chernobyl (well, now is a bad time) and actually verify what happened (as many documentaries have done!).
All you know is that someone exploded something and now there is radiation. That isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb and you know it.
Go back and read your OP. "It's Fake!" is all it says. No evidence whatsoever. Typical flat earth "theory" there.
You're right Bill, I can't prove it doesn't exist, but the idea that I need to do so is your logical fault, not my own. I can't prove a variety of nonsense statements, such as whether or not Santa and the tooth fairy exist. However, I don't think this really helps your case. Backing you all the way up to "you can't prove me wrong" shows how little you have to stand on in the first place.
-
All you know is that someone exploded something and now there is radiation. That isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb and you know it.
We know more than that. We know the extent and profile of the radiation released. Sure, there were radioactive substances released as a result of the nuclear detonations, but not much. Compared to the amount of fissionable material involved in the Chernobyl meltdown there is a relatively small amount in an atomic bomb. A bomb only requires about 10lbs. A small fraction of what was available in the reactor. The difference is the huge amount of and type of radiation released and in a very short period of time. Don't believe the "propaganda" as you call it. Do some study into the physics.
As to "propaganda", what are the odds that Japan (and the rest of the enemies of the US) would support the US's supposed propaganda about nuclear bombs after they just demolished two major Japanese cities? Just a bit of a stretch. But I digress. It's not an argument, just a little comic relief
Go back and read your OP. "It's Fake!" is all it says. No evidence whatsoever. Typical flat earth "theory" there.
You're right Bill, I can't prove it doesn't exist, but the idea that I need to do so is your logical fault, not my own. I can't prove a variety of nonsense statements, such as whether or not Santa and the tooth fairy exist. However, I don't think this really helps your case. Backing you all the way up to "you can't prove me wrong" shows how little you have to stand on in the first place.
Well, to be honest, if that is what I was basing my argument on, you would have me. However, it's not. I am basing it on the completely different fingerprint a nuclear detonation leaves when compared to any other release of nuclear radiation. As I think I stated before, there is nothing like it. Not even remotely. You can come by months or even years later and easily tell whether there was a bomb, a reactor meltdown or a lady scientist walking around with radium in her pockets.
Anyway Rushy. I'll give you the last word. I'm not going to change your mind on this. Only you can do that, and it would not be that hard for you to delve into the science behind it.
-
You're right Bill, I can't prove it doesn't exist, but the idea that I need to do so is your logical fault, not my own.
And your logical error is the classic conspiracy theorist tactic of operating in the sceptical context. You do this with all the evidence which indicates that atomic weapons are a thing, that they've been used twice in anger in living memory and that there have been loads of atomic tests since, all of which have radioactive signatures you wouldn't find in conventional bombs. Then there's the fact that the Hiroshima bomb was the equivalent of 16,000 tons of TNT, not quite sure how the Enola Gay could have transported that. None of the evidence is good enough for you. You dismiss it all.
But you do this selectively. The stuff you want to believe - that Hiroshima was "just firebombing", you claim things like that without providing any evidence. And then you do a load of wild speculation that if nuclear weapons were a thing then <bad things> would happen. But that is just you speculating, it's not evidence of anything.
So no, you can't prove nuclear weapons don't exist any more than anyone can prove they do - not to the standard you demand. But some evidence for your claims would be nice.
You can use this tactic to believe - or disbelieve - anything you like.
"Kangaroos don't exist."
"Here's a photo of one."
"That's fake."
"OK, here's a video of one"
"CGI"
"I've been to Australia and seen some"
"You're mistaken or lying"
"OK, now we're at the zoo. Look, there's a kangaroo".
"Pah, that's just an animatronic fake".
And so on. You can do this about anything. If you have any good evidence for any of your claims then present it, otherwise it's just you making wild claims to back up your narrative.
-
In context of bombs, then yes, radiation is most certainly evidence of a nuclear bomb. That is unless you can show that TNT or other conventional bombs produce radiation similar to that expected from nuclear bombs.
So, in the world of markjo, dirty bombs don't exist?
Of course dirty bombs could exist, although I have not heard of any reports of a dirty bomb being used. Have you? Have you compared the radiation from a dirty bomb to the radiation found at a nuclear bomb explosion?
-
For example: "The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects". Marie Curie died of "radiation effects", did someone nuke her, Bill?
No. She exposed herself to it by carrying radium around in her pockets.
That's what I was told in school too, but:
Curie visited Poland for the last time in early 1934. A few months later, on 4 July 1934, she died aged 66 at the Sancellemoz sanatorium in Passy, Haute-Savoie, from aplastic anemia believed to have been contracted from her long-term exposure to radiation, causing damage to her bone marrow.
The damaging effects of ionising radiation were not known at the time of her work, which had been carried out without the safety measures later developed. She had carried test tubes containing radioactive isotopes in her pocket, and she stored them in her desk drawer, remarking on the faint light that the substances gave off in the dark. Curie was also exposed to X-rays from unshielded equipment while serving as a radiologist in field hospitals during the war. In fact, when Curie's body was exhumed in 1995, the French Office de Protection contre les Rayonnements Ionisants (ORPI) "concluded that she could not have been exposed to lethal levels of radium while she was alive". They pointed out that radium poses a risk only if it is ingested, and speculated that her illness was more likely to have been due to her use of radiography during the First World War.
There's that magic word "believe" again.
-
There's that magic word "believe" again.
Nothing in there removes the fact that she carried radium around in her pockets and was exposed to it's radiation.
Aplastic anemia has quite a few known causes, one of them being exposure to the kind of radiation emitted by radium. They can try to eliminate the other causes but without absolute knowledge of every minute of her life it would be difficult or impossible to be 100% sure that the cause was the radiation. Even if you did have intimate knowledge of every minute of her life you could not discount the possibility that she acquired the condition from a yet unknown cause. I assume the consensus was that it was the most likely cause, hence the use of the word "believe".
Also, the choice to use that word is that of the author of that piece and may not have been the word used by the person/people making the determination of cause.
-
The only possible way for a Zetetic to know that a nuclear weapon actally exists is for them to experience one personally.
Of course, then it would be too late. They would only have a split second of truth and awareness before they turned into vapor.
-
The only possible way for a Zetetic to know that a nuclear weapon actally exists is for them to experience one personally.
Of course, then it would be too late. They would only have a split second of truth and awareness before they turned into vapor.
That wouldn't really cut it. Early in this thread Rushy wasn't denying the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened.
He just said it was TNT or firebombing.
-
There's that magic word "believe" again.
Nothing in there removes the fact that she carried radium around in her pockets and was exposed to it's radiation.
Aplastic anemia has quite a few known causes, one of them being exposure to the kind of radiation emitted by radium. They can try to eliminate the other causes but without absolute knowledge of every minute of her life it would be difficult or impossible to be 100% sure that the cause was the radiation. Even if you did have intimate knowledge of every minute of her life you could not discount the possibility that she acquired the condition from a yet unknown cause. I assume the consensus was that it was the most likely cause, hence the use of the word "believe".
Also, the choice to use that word is that of the author of that piece and may not have been the word used by the person/people making the determination of cause.
Next time, try reading what I post before replying.
-
Next time, try reading what I post before replying.
I did. My response was a discussion of what you posted and in particular your pointing out the "believe" in the quote you provided.
I'm not sure why you are being so defensive.
-
I've been thinking of ways to prove to a Zetetic that nuclear bombs do exist. We could personally walk them through the physics of the bomb and the mechanics of making a nuclear bomb but they would have no proof it actually works.
So, we walk them through the physics of a nuclear bomb, walk them through the mechanics of building a nuclear bomb and set them a distance from ground zero of a nuclear bomb equipped with all the detection equipment they request. Perhaps in the split second before they are incinerated, they will detect some radioactive signature unique to a nuclear reaction from a nuclear bomb that would convince them that nuclear bombs do exist. Is there any evidence they could possibly gather right up until the last split second before they are vaporized that nuclear weapons do exist?
Even in retrospect, these people would be wandering around the afterlife believing they were blown up by crates of TNT and their whole experience of life was a liberal hoax run by the leftist, pedophile cabal.
-
I've been thinking of ways to prove to a Zetetic that nuclear bombs do exist. We could personally walk them through the physics of the bomb and the mechanics of making a nuclear bomb but they would have no proof it actually works.
I am a not a Zetetic and I already provided a post that states exactly what level of evidence I want to see. Unsurprisingly, no one is able to provide it, because it does not exist. Nuclear bombs do not exist. They are not real. They have never been real.
-
I've been thinking of ways to prove to a Zetetic that nuclear bombs do exist.
Why? That's a problem statement that's not even coherent to begin with.
You don't know what Zeteticism is, do you?
-
I already provided a post that states exactly what level of evidence I want to see.
I can verify that:
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.
Of course if one was provided it would not be accepted. Either the "CGI!!!" cry would resound or Rushy would be busy moving the goal posts.
It is not possible to convince a conspiracy theorist their conspiracies are wrong. This should be obvious. Since their theories and their thinking are not based on established fact (IOW the lies we're being told) then established fact cannot shake them. More likely you will be accused of being part of the conspiracy and only serve to make it more concrete in their minds.
-
Of course if one was provided it would not be accepted. Either the "CGI!!!" cry would resound or Rushy would be busy moving the goal posts.
It is not possible to convince a conspiracy theorist their conspiracies are wrong. This should be obvious. Since their theories and their thinking are not based on established fact (IOW the lies we're being told) then established fact cannot shake them. More likely you will be accused of being part of the conspiracy and only serve to make it more concrete in their minds.
I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected. This is, of course, because you don't have it, and you're acting defensive about it and rationalizing it as "you wouldn't think it's true anyway!!!"
The reason why you and others like you get so defensive on this subject is because you must somehow believe that "x is real" without having any evidence for it whatsoever. Now, this generally isn't a problem for some people (such as religious individuals) as they accept that their beliefs are fundamentally without evidence and require faith. However, for many nuke cultists, they think of themselves as rational and science-based individuals. The inherent lack of rationality in believing nukes to be real bothers them immensely, but they bury such thoughts.
Nuclear bombs are "baby's first Project Blue Beam". A falsehood meant to suppress ignorant enemies into submission.
-
I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected. This is, of course, because you don't have it, and you're acting defensive about it and rationalizing it as "you wouldn't think it's true anyway!!!"
And I like how you ask for evidence that you know full well is impossible to provide and then get all smug when people do try to provide what evidence is possible to provide.
-
I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected.
The evidence you ask for is weirdly specific and doesn't even make sense.
You want to see the "internals of the device". What would that tell you? I wouldn't know what the internals of a nuclear weapon should look like. They could show me anything, how would you or I know that's real?
And then you want to see it detonated. OK. You understand that these blasts are very powerful so that would need to be from some distance away. The person showing the "internals of the device" and the camera would need to get that distance away and from that distance how could you know it's really the device you just saw the internals of that exploded?
you must somehow believe that "x is real" without having any evidence for it whatsoever.
This continues to be incorrect no matter how many times you say it. You have been shown a lot of evidence in this thread. You can reject it all of course and call it inadequate, as is your right, but to say we don't have "any evidence" is simply incorrect.
I actually disagree that religious beliefs are not based at all on evidence. I mean, let's say there was no historic evidence that Jesus even existed. Let's say the Gospels talk about people and places which just never existed. Let's say that there were no known versions of the Gospels before 1900. Then I'd be taking a pretty big leap of faith believing any of the New Testamant stories. But none of that is true. There is extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus existing, the people mentioned are known to have existed and many of the places mentioned still exist. There are copies of fragments of Gospels going back to reasonably close to Jesus' time. So while sure, I've had to take somewhat of a leap of faith it's not a completely blind leap with no evidence to back it up. Many of our beliefs are evidence based, you can't verify everything first hand.
The inherent lack of rationality in believing nukes to be real bothers them immensely, but they bury such thoughts.
I'd suggest it's a lack of rationality to disbelieve all the people who have witnessed at first hand nuclear explosions, dismiss the explosions as caused by conventional explosions - something you have provided no evidence for - and to ignore the radiation signatures of the bombs. As I've said multiple times, your entire argument is one of incredulity.
-
I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected. This is, of course, because you don't have it, and you're acting defensive about it and rationalizing it as "you wouldn't think it's true anyway!!!"
And I like how you ask for evidence that you know full well is impossible to provide and then get all smug when people do try to provide what evidence is possible to provide.
The second half of this tactic is the famous "I'm not doing your homework for you." It allows freaks to make outlandish claims and live them with no accounting for reality. I've known people who spent months working on a submarines with enough nuclear firepower to destroy a hemisphere and poison the entire planet with radiation. Those people who live and work on those submarines as well as those who developed the weapons are laughing at some idiotic beanbag on the internet who says it's all fake.
It's the same way people in Australia laugh at the flat earthers. The FE crowd can go on and on about about how stupid the mainstream sheeples are but they are still the ones that can't explain the basic geography of the planet.
It would all be sad except it's so much fun laughing at these people, it does have some redeeming social value.
-
I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected. This is, of course, because you don't have it, and you're acting defensive about it and rationalizing it as "you wouldn't think it's true anyway!!!"
And I like how you ask for evidence that you know full well is impossible to provide and then get all smug when people do try to provide what evidence is possible to provide.
Yeah, it's almost like I'm asking for evidence of something that doesn't exist!
You want to see the "internals of the device". What would that tell you? I wouldn't know what the internals of a nuclear weapon should look like. They could show me anything, how would you or I know that's real?
And then you want to see it detonated. OK. You understand that these blasts are very powerful so that would need to be from some distance away. The person showing the "internals of the device" and the camera would need to get that distance away and from that distance how could you know it's really the device you just saw the internals of that exploded?
I don't think it's "weirdly specific" to require that the inside of the nuclear weapon clearly contains mechanisms that it is proposed to actually have.
This continues to be incorrect no matter how many times you say it. You have been shown a lot of evidence in this thread. You can reject it all of course and call it inadequate, as is your right, but to say we don't have "any evidence" is simply incorrect.
All you've shown is things you believe to be evidence. It's like when a religious fanatic shows me the weight of a corpse changing on death and tells me that's evidence of the soul. To you, it might look normal because you've surrounded yourself with your fellow acolytes. To me, it just makes you look insane.
I actually disagree that religious beliefs are not based at all on evidence. I mean, let's say there was no historic evidence that Jesus even existed. Let's say the Gospels talk about people and places which just never existed. Let's say that there were no known versions of the Gospels before 1900. Then I'd be taking a pretty big leap of faith believing any of the New Testamant stories. But none of that is true. There is extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus existing, the people mentioned are known to have existed and many of the places mentioned still exist. There are copies of fragments of Gospels going back to reasonably close to Jesus' time. So while sure, I've had to take somewhat of a leap of faith it's not a completely blind leap with no evidence to back it up. Many of our beliefs are evidence based, you can't verify everything first hand.
There isn't any historical evidence that Jesus existed... Did you think there was? Did you honestly believe the bible is "historical evidence"? Let's not get sidetracked here. I don't want to delve in multiple of your erroneous beliefs at once. Let's stick to the idea that you think a glowing rock can blow up a city.
I'd suggest it's a lack of rationality to disbelieve all the people who have witnessed at first hand nuclear explosions, dismiss the explosions as caused by conventional explosions - something you have provided no evidence for - and to ignore the radiation signatures of the bombs. As I've said multiple times, your entire argument is one of incredulity.
Just like how people have witnessed first hand aliens, right? What about bigfoot? Are those eye witnesses very reliable as well or would you claim they just weren't sure what they were looking at?
-
I don't think it's "weirdly specific" to require that the inside of the nuclear weapon clearly contains mechanisms that it is proposed to actually have.
And how would you determine that? How do you know what the inside of a nuclear weapon would look like? Your only source of information for that would be what "they" tell you, and you clearly don't trust "them"?
All you've shown is things you believe to be evidence.
No. I've shown you evidence. I believe the evidence, but that's a separate thing
Witness testimony from survivors of Hiroshima is evidence.
Film of nuclear explosions is evidence.
Papers about the radioactive after effects of nuclear tests is evidence.
All those things ARE evidence. They'd all be accepted in a court of law as such. How credible you find them is an exercise for the reader.
I'd note you have provided no evidence for your assertion that Hiroshima was "firebombing".
It's like when a religious fanatic shows me the weight of a corpse changing on death and tells me that's evidence of the soul. To you, it might look normal because you've surrounded yourself with your fellow acolytes. To me, it just makes you look insane.
No, you're right. That is insane. For a start, why would a soul have mass? Secondly, far as I can tell that was a one off experiment or series of experiments the results of which are disputed and have not been repeated.
There isn't any historical evidence that Jesus existed...
Incorrect.
Let's stick to the idea that you think a glowing rock can blow up a city.
OK. Well, the physics around this is well understood. No-one is saying that glowing rocks can make you teleport. But yes, they do contain a large amount of energy
Because E=mc2
'c' is a very big number. So the m doesn't have to be that big to generate a huge amount of energy.
Do you also think nuclear power stations are fake? It's a similar physics with those.
Just like how people have witnessed first hand aliens, right? What about bigfoot? Are those eye witnesses very reliable as well or would you claim they just weren't sure what they were looking at?
As I noted in the aliens thread, it's interesting how now we all walk around with HD cameras in our pockets there hasn't been an explosion of clear pictures of UFOs and bigfoot.
So sure, witness testimony alone may be suspect but it depends what the person is claiming to have witnessed. Certain claims are more credible than others. That's subjective, obviously. But when you combine the witness testimony with the fact that the Hiroshima bomb is on film as are many of the other nuclear tests. Then you have numerous sources outlining the radioactive effects of nuclear bombs and tests. For example
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-atomic-bomb-survivors-have-transformed-our-understanding-radiation-s-impacts
And the fact it's based on well understood and accepted physics. Like most things we can't directly witness we base our opinions on balance of probabilities.
You have provided no evidence for your alternative explanation and your entire argument is one from incredulity.
-
I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected.
Good, I'm glad I could provide something you like. Makes me feel warm and cuddly.
Your ask is asinine and you know it. Nuclear weapons, even the tiniest ones, are not cheap. They are many millions of dollars. No one is just going to go ahead and build one in your presence and then take you out to show you it blowing up. They are not going to do it on camera without cut shots either because the cost will be roughly the same and the effort will be higher.
It's pretty easy, and disingenuous, to ask for proof that is a practical impossibility.
The reason why you and others like you get so defensive on this subject is because you must somehow believe that "x is real" without having any evidence for it whatsoever.
Hilarious! Yeah, like you must believe nuclear weapons are fake without having any evidence for it whatsoever? Okay, I can see how you'd be an expert in doing that.
See, here's the issue and why I assume you'd reject any attempt at proof. There is already ton's of evidence. You just don't trust it. What would ever make any of us think you would trust any further evidence?
Anyway, this thread is going off the rails. From my perspective I'll give you the last word.
-
Yeah, it's almost like I'm asking for evidence of something that doesn't exist!
Personally, I think that it’s far more likely that you know full well that nuclear bombs do exist and you’re just trolling.
-
And how would you determine that? How do you know what the inside of a nuclear weapon would look like? Your only source of information for that would be what "they" tell you, and you clearly don't trust "them"?
I don't know what the inside of a nuclear weapon looks like, and neither do you, funny enough! They never actually show what's in there, just funny pictures of plain metal containers with "aliens inside" written on it. Sorry, I mean "nuclear materials inside" with the scary radioactive symbol.
All those things ARE evidence. They'd all be accepted in a court of law as such. How credible you find them is an exercise for the reader.
Gee, I forgot about the physics courts. Remember when they upheld the law of gravity? I still think it's unconstitutional myself, but I guess that's up to the reader!
I'd note you have provided no evidence for your assertion that Hiroshima was "firebombing".
It's hilarious that a small wooden village was "nuked" and the only masonry building in such village survived the "blast" easily while all the wooden ones burned down. Really makes you think.
Do you also think nuclear power stations are fake? It's a similar physics with those.
Why does everyone say this? It's obvious how little physics you understand (bringing up e=mc^2). You should know you can't convert mass to energy in that way.
Further, do you think boiling water is the same thing as blowing up entire villages? Should I put a "weapon of mass destruction" label on my stove? It boils a lot of water!
And Chernobyl! Did it explode? It didn't? It's still there? Woah. It's almost like how nuclear energy works and how your made-up bomb meme works are two totally different things.
As I noted in the aliens thread, it's interesting how now we all walk around with HD cameras in our pockets there hasn't been an explosion of clear pictures of UFOs and bigfoot.
There's no explosion of clear pictures of nuclear bombs, either. Really makes one think. In fact, no one ever explodes nuclear bombs (North Korea supposedly does it underground where you can't see it, what a hilarious coincidence!)
So sure, witness testimony alone may be suspect but it depends what the person is claiming to have witnessed. Certain claims are more credible than others. That's subjective, obviously. But when you combine the witness testimony with the fact that the Hiroshima bomb is on film as are many of the other nuclear tests. Then you have numerous sources outlining the radioactive effects of nuclear bombs and tests. For example
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-atomic-bomb-survivors-have-transformed-our-understanding-radiation-s-impacts
And the fact it's based on well understood and accepted physics. Like most things we can't directly witness we base our opinions on balance of probabilities.
It's based on unproven nonsense, it's "well accepted" because it is irrelevant to physics on whether or not a big bomb exists. It's a geopolitical tool, not a physics problem. There are no peer reviewed papers on building nuclear bombs.
You have provided no evidence for your alternative explanation and your entire argument is one from incredulity.
I don't have to provide evidence of something not existing, how many times must I state that?
Yeah, it's almost like I'm asking for evidence of something that doesn't exist!
Personally, I think that it’s far more likely that you know full well that nuclear bombs do exist and you’re just trolling.
You have been warned repeatedly that accusing people of trolling is not a form of content. Either say something meaningful or do not say anything at all. The next time I see you accuse someone of trolling in any thread in any upper forum it's a 3-day ban.
Hilarious! Yeah, like you must believe nuclear weapons are fake without having any evidence for it whatsoever? Okay, I can see how you'd be an expert in doing that.
See, here's the issue and why I assume you'd reject any attempt at proof. There is already ton's of evidence. You just don't trust it. What would ever make any of us think you would trust any further evidence?
Anyway, this thread is going off the rails. From my perspective I'll give you the last word.
The important takeaway is that you found a way to think you're right without supporting your position. Go ahead, run away from the thread. No one will miss you. "wah wah wah you don't like my extra good evidence of explodey pictures!"
-
I don't know what the inside of a nuclear weapon looks like, and neither do you, funny enough!
That's pretty much my point. So why then would that be part of the evidence you would accept. "They" could show you anything, you wouldn't know what you're looking at.
And then they'd either have to cut to another camera to show the explosion, or there would have to be a long shot of them retreating to a safe distance. Either way it would be easy for you to claim it's not the device you were shown the inside of that exploded. It's just a bizarre criteria you set for the evidence you'd accept. It makes zero sense.
You dismiss the mountain of evidence already available to you and then set a level of evidence you would accept which would be far less compelling than what already exists.
It's hilarious that a small wooden village was "nuked" and the only masonry building in such village survived the "blast" easily while all the wooden ones burned down. Really makes you think.
It makes me think that masonry is stronger than wood. The three little pigs know that, dude. As for survived the blast easily, have a look at the pictures. Some of the buildings are standing, but they're hardly pristine.
EDIT: I don't think "small wooden villages typically have populations of a quarter of a million people, at least 90,000 of whom died in the explosion. That's quite the fire bombing...
Why does everyone say this? It's obvious how little physics you understand (bringing up e=mc^2).
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace-and-war/the-manhattan-project
Although he never worked directly on the atomic bomb, Einstein is often incorrectly associated with the advent of nuclear weapons. His famous equation E=mc2 explains the energy released in an atomic bomb
And Chernobyl! Did it explode? It didn't? It's still there? Woah. It's almost like how nuclear energy works and how your made-up bomb meme works are two totally different things.
They're not totally different, neither are they identical. Those aren't the only two options.
I don't have to provide evidence of something not existing, how many times must I state that?
That isn't what I suggested you provide evidence for.
We agree that Hiroshima happened, right? You've said it was "fire-bombing", but have provided no evidence of that. The best you've come up with is that less strong structures were more easily flattened than stronger ones. But your thesis doesn't work. For that level of destruction to have been conventional explosives there would have had to be thousands of tons of them. How was that dropped on them? It was a single plane which delivered the bomb.
There is witness testimony of it being a single explosion and there was a radiation signature from the bomb. Evidence of all that has been provided.
-
It is a feature of the willfully ignorant that they will reject any evidence that goes against their beliefs. There are people that work on nuclear weapons, there are astronauts that have orbited the earth but the willful ingnoids whose delusions are threatened these people simply brand them as liars.
Truthfully, I wouldn't care if these idiots didn't believe the earth is round or if nukes exist. The smugness wrapping their absolute stupidity is very entertaining. They'll never know how idiotic they are to those of us who who have to deal with reality. The danger they pose is when their soft mushy minds are used by people like Trump or Putin. Let's face it, if you can't even understand the basic geography of this planet, you're going to be fodder for cult leaders, despots, late night infomercials and internet banner ads. Have your credit card standing by!
I do wonder, metaphysically, if in our death, we do see some level of truth in the beyond. I imagine the soul of a flat earther leaving their body and being exposed to the nature of truth around them. As their disembodied soul soars over the stars and planets, will they still curse and insist it's all a liberal hoax?
If Rushy was blown up by a nuclear weapon, would there be a moment of enlightenment where all dimensions of the past and future are visible. Would he see the bomb being built and deployed? Would the story of what really killed him enter his awareness?
lol, Imagine the afterlife, Jesus trying to explain to Rushy that he was blown up by a nuclear weapon.
"Prove it, you long-haired, liberal, hippie freak!"
-
Why does everyone say this? It's obvious how little physics you understand (bringing up e=mc^2). You should know you can't convert mass to energy in that way.
This here is 100% pure bunk. Do you realize this proves, beyond any shadow of the tiniest doubt, that you do not understand the slightest thing about where nuclear energy comes from. Yet you still feel qualified to discuss it and taunt me for wanting out of this discussion? It is now obvious why you don't accept any of the evidence presented - because you are not able in any way to see that it is evidence. So, again, no point it having a discussion with you on it. You have just put in writing you don't understand any of it.
I don't have to provide evidence of something not existing, how many times must I state that?
Nobody is asking for that. You have made some monumentally ridiculous claims here. We are asking for evidence for those claims. You have provided exactly none. Which leads us (me, anyway) to think you have none and you were really just speaking out of your extreme lower digestive system anatomy.
Update here: Let's add to this the fact that you are asserting that something that is already accepted as an established fact does not exist. In this case, yes, the onus is squarely on you to provide evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the established fact is wrong. Into other words that nuclear weapons don't exist. The best way to do that is to use your superior knowledge to show they can't exist. Another way would be to provide irrefutable evidence (in the true meaning of "evidence") that all the things that happened that are currently explained by the use of nuclear weapons are better explained by some other means (that's the thing you have not done).
The important takeaway is that you found a way to think you're right without supporting your position. Go ahead, run away from the thread. No one will miss you. "wah wah wah you don't like my extra good evidence of explodey pictures!"
There is no longer any point in arguing about nuclear weapons. The only evidence you say you will accept is not something anyone here can provide. ::)
On the other hand, if you like I can stick around to be a thorn in your side and we can discuss what actually constitutes what people call "evidence" and how it needs to be treated to be if use. However, that subject is not likely to go anywhere as has been demonstrated by you gleefully rejecting evidence presented here without even taking the time to learn the significance of it to the subject at hand with a sound "Nuh uuhh"! Besides, such a discussion would be off topic for the thread.
So I'll let you get back to your ad hominem rhetoric.
-
lol, Imagine the afterlife, Jesus trying to explain to Rushy that he was blown up by a nuclear weapon.
"Prove it, you long-haired, liberal, hippie freak!"
Rushy's ad hominem is a bit more subtle but I do get your meaning here.
-
That's pretty much my point. So why then would that be part of the evidence you would accept. "They" could show you anything, you wouldn't know what you're looking at.
And then they'd either have to cut to another camera to show the explosion, or there would have to be a long shot of them retreating to a safe distance. Either way it would be easy for you to claim it's not the device you were shown the inside of that exploded. It's just a bizarre criteria you set for the evidence you'd accept. It makes zero sense.
You dismiss the mountain of evidence already available to you and then set a level of evidence you would accept which would be far less compelling than what already exists.
It's not a "mountain of evidence" and I think this thread makes that pretty clear.
It makes me think that masonry is stronger than wood. The three little pigs know that, dude. As for survived the blast easily, have a look at the pictures. Some of the buildings are standing, but they're hardly pristine.
EDIT: I don't think "small wooden villages typically have populations of a quarter of a million people, at least 90,000 of whom died in the explosion. That's quite the fire bombing...
My point is that it's not a coincidence that two remote villages with no military value were targeted for this demonstration of a super-mega-ultra-bomb. They were firebombed in such a way that is was known they would be basically flattened, but the masonry building survived because it doesn't burn. Otherwise, you must be saying that all we need to do to survive a nuclear bomb is to be in a masonry building. Well, no wonder no one uses them, most modern cities are made of concrete! The bomb is useless after all!
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace-and-war/the-manhattan-project
More propaganda.
That isn't what I suggested you provide evidence for.
We agree that Hiroshima happened, right? You've said it was "fire-bombing", but have provided no evidence of that. The best you've come up with is that less strong structures were more easily flattened than stronger ones. But your thesis doesn't work. For that level of destruction to have been conventional explosives there would have had to be thousands of tons of them. How was that dropped on them? It was a single plane which delivered the bomb.
There is witness testimony of it being a single explosion and there was a radiation signature from the bomb. Evidence of all that has been provided.
Remember when you claimed that nuclear bombs have radiation that lasts practically forever but somehow Hiroshima cleaned it all up in just a few months then rebuilt? Comedy at its finest.
It is a feature of the willfully ignorant that they will reject any evidence that goes against their beliefs.
That's what all of you have been doing in this entire thread. You are so inundated with propaganda, so blasted with fictional stories of nonsense, that you'd prefer to believe it. This is always the case with people who have been lied to. It will always be easier for you to stay with the lie than be told it was a lie, because it requires accepting that you were lied to and deceived. To be deceived is to be weak and no one wants accept weakness. Therefore, you'd prefer the fairy tale over reality. This is the same thing that keeps people religious long into their adult years.
This here is 100% pure bunk. Do you realize this proves, beyond any shadow of the tiniest doubt, that you do not understand the slightest thing about where nuclear energy comes from. Yet you still feel qualified to discuss it and taunt me for wanting out of this discussion? It is now obvious why you don't accept any of the evidence presented - because you are not able in any way to see that it is evidence. So, again, no point it having a discussion with you on it. You have just put in writing you don't understand any of it.
Ironic. Let me guess, you, too, incorrectly believe mass can be magically converted into energy? I guess in your mind, when you burn the gasoline in a car, it just goes "poof" and turns into energy.
Maybe you should look up how the bombs are claimed to actually work instead of quoting your favorite pop-sci equations. Here's a hint: even nuclear bomb liars don't claim you can extract all the mass of a nuclear bomb and turn it into energy! Wow! I hope you look it up and feel silly afterwards.
Nobody is asking for that. You have made some monumentally ridiculous claims here. We are asking for evidence for those claims. You have provided exactly none. Which leads us (me, anyway) to think you have none and you were really just speaking out of your extreme lower digestive system anatomy.
No need to be so rude, especially after you said you were going to stop responding, something I personally looked forward to. It's funny how people such as yourself jump straight to insults when I've said none in this entire thread.
Update here: Let's add to this the fact that you are asserting that something that is already accepted as an established fact does not exist. In this case, yes, the onus is squarely on you to provide evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the established fact is wrong. Into other words that nuclear weapons don't exist. The best way to do that is to use your superior knowledge to show they can't exist. Another way would be to provide irrefutable evidence (in the true meaning of "evidence") that all the things that happened that are currently explained by the use of nuclear weapons are better explained by some other means (that's the thing you have not done).
Sorry, gee, I forgot that if a lot of people believe a lie and assert it as fact, it magically becomes true. What a strange world. I guess propaganda really is a form of sorcery!
There is no longer any point in arguing about nuclear weapons. The only evidence you say you will accept is not something anyone here can provide. ::)
No one can provide it because nuclear bombs don't exist. If I asked you for a video on the US president being presented a unicorn as a birthday gift, I suppose you would have similar trouble finding it. Most notably because it didn't happen.
-
Ironic. Let me guess, you, too, incorrectly believe mass can be magically converted into energy? I guess in your mind, when you burn the gasoline in a car, it just goes "poof" and turns into energy.
That's NOT how it works.
Maybe you should look up how the bombs are claimed to actually work instead of quoting your favorite pop-sci equations.
Thanks for your concern, but there is no need for me to do that. I already know. Unlike you.
Here's a hint: even nuclear bomb liars don't claim you can extract all the mass of a nuclear bomb and turn it into energy! Wow! I hope you look it up and feel silly afterwards.
Your ignorance is showing again. No one that knows what is actually taking place would ever say this. No shame in not knowing, only in trying to pass yourself off as an expert when it's painfully obvious you are not.
No need to be so rude, especially after you said you were going to stop responding
So, still no evidence of your claims? BTW "speaking out of your ass" is not an insult. It's a colloquial term meaning "speaking from ignorance", which is just usually a statement of fact.
... because nuclear bombs don't exist.
Yes, that is one of your ridiculous claims, and your evidence for it is ... ?
-
Yes, that is one of your ridiculous claims, and your evidence for it is ... ?
Asking the same question over and over again is rather boring. If you don't intend on providing the evidence I asked for (you can't, because nuclear bombs do not exist), then why bother wasting your time in this thread? I have proven my point quite considerably. Nuclear bombs have not been made, are not currently being made, and will never be made. They do not exist. It's a scam, like religion or Australia.
-
We could personally walk them through the physics of the bomb and the mechanics of making a nuclear bomb...
So, we walk them through the physics of a nuclear bomb, walk them through the mechanics of building a nuclear bomb...
"We," will eagerly await the "we," walk through...
I mean, holy crap...here is something on this forum claiming to have all the physics of a non-existent device worked out...
HILARITY!!!
-
My point is that it's not a coincidence that two remote villages with no military value were targeted for this demonstration of a super-mega-ultra-bomb.
This is incorrect in multiple ways. They weren't "remote villages". Hiroshima was in the top 10 largest cities in Japan at the time and:
Hiroshima was also very important from a military perspective since it was home to the 2nd Army Headquarters, which were responsible for the defense of southern Japan. It was an important center of storage, communications, and assembly of soldiers. The city’s landscape added to its appeal as a place to showcase the bombs destructive power – the nearby hills could increase damage from the atomic blast and the rivers running through it kept Hiroshima off the list of targets for firebombing
(My emphasis. Source: https://www.globalzero.org/updates/the-atomic-bombings-why-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/ )
Another similar source: https://www.atomicarchive.com/history/atomic-bombing/hiroshima/page-4.html
They were firebombed in such a way that is was known they would be basically flattened, but the masonry building survived because it doesn't burn. Otherwise, you must be saying that all we need to do to survive a nuclear bomb is to be in a masonry building.
Again, I'd urge you to look some of the "after" photos. Some of the masonry buildings remain standing but you're acting like they were pristine and only the wooden ones burned. That's simply not true. In fact in this image you can see some of the masonry ones are seriously damaged. That building at the bottom looks like wood actually and is standing, maybe it was protected in some way by another structure.
https://i0.wp.com/prologue.blogs.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2020/07/342-C-K6011.jpg
About 2 minutes 30 in here you can see some masonry buildings very seriously damaged
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nye1akYYR2k
Your claim of firebombing makes no sense. How would you deploy enough firebombs to wreak that much damage in one go? The witness testimony clearly describes a single explosion. Example:
August 6 was “an unimaginably beautiful day” punctuated by a “blinding light that flashed as if a thousand magnesium bulbs had been turned on all at once,” Hiroshima survivor Kikue Shiota later recalled. The blast trapped 21-year-old Shiota and her 16-year-old sister beneath the remains of their razed house, more than a mile from the bomb’s hypocenter.
Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nine-harrowing-eyewitness-accounts-bombings-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-180975480/
That's firebombing, is it?
Remember when you claimed that nuclear bombs have radiation that lasts practically forever but somehow Hiroshima cleaned it all up in just a few months then rebuilt?
No, I don't remember any of that because that's not what I said. What I said was that there is a radiation signature of nuclear bombs which proves it wasn't a conventional weapon. This has had effects which can be studied:
Leukemia is a very rare disease, but clinicians became aware that it was appearing a lot among the survivors," says Kotaro Ozasa, an RERF epidemiologist. ABCC showed the disease was especially prevalent among those closest to the hypocenter. Previous studies among people exposed to radiation in a medical context had hinted at the link, Wakeford says, but "the findings from Japan provided convincing evidence."
Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/how-atomic-bomb-survivors-have-transformed-our-understanding-radiation-s-impacts
And you surely understand about the half-life of a radiation source?
The initial radiation emitted at the moment of detonation inflicted great damage to human bodies. Most of those exposed to direct radiation within a one-kilometer radius died. Residual radiation was emitted later. Roughly 80% of all residual radiation was emitted within 24 hours. Research has indicated that 24 hours after the bombing the quantity of residual radiation a person would receive at the hypocenter would be 1/1000th of the quantity received immediately following the explosion. A week later, it would be 1/1,000,000th. Thus, residual radiation declined rapidly.
https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/site/english/9809.html
More details here about why you can live in Hiroshima but not Chernobyl
https://higgsino.medium.com/why-can-you-live-in-hiroshima-but-not-chernobyl-ab7dac7a34d3
Again, the physics is similar but not identical.
-
And, actually, people do live in Chornobyl.
The Soviet authorities established 2 zones centred on the reactor; at 10 km radius, and at 30 km radius.
Prior to the Russian invasion, these zones and checkpoints continued to be maintained, administered and monitored by Ukraine. The 10 km zone has the most severe contamination and was declared uninhabitable, due to the backround radiation and the multitude of hotspots. The 10 km zone includes the now abandoned city of Pripyat, 3 km from the reactor, which is where the famous derelict apartments, hotels and funfair are located. Prior to Feb 2022 it could be visited by tourists (like me, 2021). Day-trippers are obliged to wear a dosimeter which is monitored at the end of your visit; tour guides, workers and security personnel are more rigidly monitored, and all vehicles are decontaminated on departure.
The town of Chornobyl is actually about 15 km from the reactor, hence inside the 30-zone, but outside the 10-zone. It continues to house security and maintenance personnel. Although it is permanently occupied, personnel work on a shift-basis of a few weeks on site, alternating with a similar period elsewhere. The workers are there to maintain the infrastructure, but mainly to continue processing fuel rods from the other, decomisssioned, reactors.
Since the Incident, the residual ground based radiation gradually percolated down into the soil, so presented a reducing hazard when walking or driving on concrete.
Then, of course, Russia drove its tank batallions across the terrain, and put everything back to 1986.
-
Right. Since you have not even provided one Word of evidence for your quackery let alone "proof" (another word that escapes you) I will consider your tirade a win on my part and (may, unless taunted) exit gracefully. Yeah, although I have some coin, spending 10's of million's of dollars on weaponry and battling military red tape on your unlikely edification is not going to happen.
Oh, of course, tens of millions of dollars are being spent on bombs that if we used the entire world will supposedly end. On the other hand, the idea that other people took that money to buy yachts is inconceivable to you. At this point it's just sad. Why do people like you desire so much to be scammed and belittled by your own government?
Bye, bye now.
This is the second time (possibly the third?) you've told me you're going to leave the thread. As I said before, no one will miss you, you've added nothing to the thread and as far as I'm concerned I've been very lenient with how I've responded to your addled nonsense.
This is incorrect in multiple ways. They weren't "remote villages". Hiroshima was in the top 10 largest cities in Japan at the time and:
A top 10 largest city made entirely out of wooden huts? Use your noggin, AATW. Surely you didn't just google the population and think "ah yes this number obviously matches the pictures of Hiroshima".
Again, I'd urge you to look some of the "after" photos. Some of the masonry buildings remain standing but you're acting like they were pristine and only the wooden ones burned. That's simply not true. In fact in this image you can see some of the masonry ones are seriously damaged. That building at the bottom looks like wood actually and is standing, maybe it was protected in some way by another structure.
Masonry buildings are also damaged in firebombing.
Your claim of firebombing makes no sense. How would you deploy enough firebombs to wreak that much damage in one go? The witness testimony clearly describes a single explosion.
They firebombed a remote village, killing the entire population, then had "eye witnesses" describe fantastical nonsense.
That's firebombing, is it?
Yes.
And you surely understand about the half-life of a radiation source?
Do you? You told me earlier that Hiroshima was fine and not radioactive at all after some cleanup. Which truth are we going with now? The more convenient one?
Again, the physics is similar but not identical.
Blowing up an entire village and boiling a large tank of water are not "similar".
-
Surely you didn't just google the population and think "ah yes this number obviously matches the pictures of Hiroshima".
No. I also looked in to why it was chosen as a target (something which, to be honest, I've never really given too much thought to). It wasn't just some remote village. I have provided the evidence, which you have ignored.
They firebombed a remote village, killing the entire population, then had "eye witnesses" describe fantastical nonsense.
This is incorrect. It wasn't a remote village and only about a quarter of the population died.
This is the textbook conspiracy theorist tactic. Just dismiss all the evidence that you're wrong as fake or wrong while providing no evidence of your own assertions.
You told me earlier that Hiroshima was fine and not radioactive at all after some cleanup. Which truth are we going with now? The more convenient one?
I'm not clear what you're not understanding. There is no contradiction here.
A nuclear weapon releases a lot of radioactive material which can be harmful to people and was shown to be harmful to the population of Hiroshima. I have provided the evidence for that.
It can also be true that after the initial blast there isn't a lot of long lasting high level of radioactive material.
Blowing up an entire village and boiling a large tank of water are not "similar".
Well. In a way they are. They both involve generating energy. The physics that generates the energy to do those two things can be the same. The former is a controlled reaction, the second is a deliberately set off chain reaction intended to release a lot of energy very quickly.