Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rushy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 232  Next >
1
Rushy is correct.

We know that past did exist and that the future will exist, but our understanding of the universe says that only the now exists.  Everything else is just evidence of change left in the now.  Like photos or writing or memory.  All of it only exists now.

Not necessarily. Have you heard of the time loaf theory? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/slicing-the-spacetime-loaf.248893/ (Yes I know a forum isn't exactly a credible source, but they hit a lot of key points and aren't talking in science jargon. I can grab a more credible source if you request I though.)

This isn't a correct understanding of relativity. It requires that you somehow know what two observers in two different frames are observing simultaneously (which simply isn't possible!). You can always state that two observers will observe radically different 'now' realities, but those two 'now' realities are always happening 'now' to the observer. Put another way: you cannot observe a time that is not 'now' in your own frame.

It's not possible for you, as an observer, to be in multiple frames at one time observing multiple realities. This further proves that time itself is merely an observer phenomenon, it is not a real quality that exists external to the observer.

2
Time itself isn't real, therefore it isn't possible to  "travel through time". There's absolutely zero evidence that the past or future exists in any way.

Rushy himself isn't real, therefore it isn't possible to "meet him irl". There's absolutely zero evidence that Rushy exists in any way.

This is true but not relevant to my original point.

3
I like how Western media consistently portrayed Russia as being able to do things like invade both of America's coasts or burn down the White House. Then, as it turns out, Russia has trouble holding cities mere kilometers from their own border. When Obama called Russia a "regional power" in 2014, he was mocked for underestimating Russia. Now, in hindsight, we can only conclude that he was vastly overestimating them instead.

4
Time itself isn't real, therefore it isn't possible to  "travel through time". There's absolutely zero evidence that the past or future exists in any way.

5
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 15, 2022, 09:34:56 PM »
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!

6
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 15, 2022, 03:27:32 PM »
No one really cares if you believe or not.

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

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?

7
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 14, 2022, 08:35:13 PM »
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.

8
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 14, 2022, 07:39:01 PM »
So, what are your proof standards?  Just what exactly would you have to see in order for you to be convinced that nuclear bombs actually exist? 
What are yours? You lads need to learn you can't ask me to prove something doesn't exist (that's not possible). You're going about this all wrong. You must provide proof it exists, not the other way around.
You misunderstand, as usual.  What do I have to show you in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  It's like getting into a taxi and the driver saying 'where to'.  You then say 'just drive, I'll tell you when we arrive'.  That's fine as long as you are paying for every mile driven, but it wouldn't work if the ride is free.  I'm asking you what kind of evidence would you require in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  I'll do the proving if you tell me what you need.

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

9
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 14, 2022, 07:06:37 PM »
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.

10
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 14, 2022, 01:50:27 PM »
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.

11
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 11, 2022, 03:13:14 PM »
You don't have any 'evidence standards' for what a nuclear device is or isn't do you?  How can you possibly claim that what I've seen is false and I've been 'lied to'?  Gas lighting just doesn't work with me.  Why don't you go to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and start your spew.  People there probably need your kind of psychological help.

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

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.

12
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 10, 2022, 07:36:33 PM »
If you are going to claim that nukes are 'fake' then you will have to starting calling a lot of people 'lying sacks of shit'.  I'm one of them. This isn't something that happens in space. 

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?

13
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 10, 2022, 07:07:11 PM »
I'm the one asserting there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide).
You also asserted "modern thermonuclear fusion weapons supposedly don't have any radioactive fallout". Citation?

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

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

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

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

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

14
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 10, 2022, 06:07:02 PM »
Imagine my surprise that you provide no evidence for that assertion.
(If you are imagining no surprise at all then you are correctly imagining how much surprise I felt)

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

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

This sort of argumentation style was seen as illogical by the Greeks a couple thousand years ago. Please stop keeping it on life support.

Quote
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!).

15
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 10, 2022, 03:10:33 PM »
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!

16
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 10, 2022, 01:12:07 PM »
"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.

17
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 08, 2022, 05:10:54 PM »
- 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.


18
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 08, 2022, 04:42:51 PM »
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.

19
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 08, 2022, 04:25:17 PM »
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.

20
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 08, 2022, 02:55:52 PM »
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

Quote
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!


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 232  Next >