[markjo]

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.

[gerard1977]

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

[BillO]

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.

[Rushy]

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.

[BillO]

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.

[AllAroundTheWorld]

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.

[markjo]

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?

[Dual1ty]

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.