This is being called a Nuke! Can someone identify this weapon? Yemen Conflict.

a reply to: Zaphod58

you're the ones claiming to be siezmagram experts.

I don't need to prove you ain't. pretty obvious you are talking bs.

a reply to: devilmoon

You're the one claiming that they're setting off 2-3 nuclear weapons a day, and not one country has protested, or even said they're doing it. You need to prove that. Whether we're seismograph experts or not is irrelevant at this point, because you need to show proof of your claims to begin with.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I said it had been widely talked about since they started and the latest leaks prove it.

what more proof are you looking for?

links to the leaks?
is that allowed/legal?
->don't care. sure you don't need me for that if you really want the proof that you are asking for

a reply to: devilmoon

If "the latest leaks prove it" then where is the proof? Your word isn't proof of anything. There should be verifiable evidence that could be detected just about anywhere in the world. So where is the evidence? Anything.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: devilmoon

If "the latest leaks prove it" then where is the proof?

is that a trick question?

I'd hope it would be obvious.

in the leaks.

a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

RAI is first italian national tv...

here is their reportage about US future weapon used in Iraq:
www.youtube.com...
www.rainews.it...

a reply to: devilmoon

And you keep saying that, but have not provided a shred of proof other than to keep saying "in the leaks", or "it's been talked about".

a reply to: Zaphod58

so? I'm not claiming to be an authority on the matter. that would be you.

categorically deny having ever seen any of the leaks. I just trust the people who tell me these things.

a reply to: devilmoon

So you have zero proof but you're stating as fact that they've been continuously detonating nuclear weapons and no one said anything. Got it.

Where did I say I was an expert? Prove that.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I have all the proof I need. and I've told you where and how to find it if you want more.

not sure what obligation I have for any more than that.
take it.
leave it.

don't really care much.

a reply to: devilmoon

The point of a discussion board is to actually discuss things. Not make wild claims and say they're true because you say so.

a reply to: Zaphod58

well. since the latest leak contains everything about everyone and what they've been doing at the china lake testing range.

I'm sure there's lots to discuss.

why don't you have a go and see where it takes you.

my guess would be prison

a reply to: devilmoon

Seeing as it is patently obvious that you don't have a shred of proof and don't know what you're talking about, nuclear explosions and earthquakes have different seismic signatures.

Please familiarise yourself with the following information:

IEEE Spectrum

page scan from 'Geoforensics' with an excellent comparison graphic

'Forensic Seismology Revised' .pdf

Seismic signature helps reveal nuclear tests

Seismic monitoring


Essentially, the difference is a matter of P/S ratios.


Back to you....

a reply to: aorAki

Brilliant.

originally posted by: devilmoon
why don't you start a thread comparing the seizmic profile of this nuke with the siezmagrams of calif events if you want more detail.

looking forward to it.

just make sure not to use readings from usgs stations. xx


back on topic.

probably a varient of this :

www.globalsecurity.org...

following the latest research and set to minimum yield.

just look for guys working on sonofusion in the leaks.

originally posted by: devilmoon
a reply to: Bedlam
meanwhile. in the real world. they've been testing 2 or three a day in california for the last 14 years since bush ordered it.

I just want to make sure I understand your line above right..
You are claiming that they have been testing 2-3 nuclear warheads a day in California for the past 14 years right?

a reply to: opethPA

some virtual. some real.

first came up when none usgs stations detected nuclear siezmagrams with unbelievably low yield on the china lake test range at 0m depth.

been discussed on and off since then.

as I just said in my edit. keyword seems to be sonofusion.

***SNIP***

a reply to: devilmoon


So, sonofusion, which is cavitation-induced fusion now equals a nuclear explosion?

Sonofusion

a reply to: aorAki

seems to vindicate Taleyarkhan wouldn't you say?

Sonofusion (if it is possible) is NOT a nuclear explosion,
so this seems to be the wrong rabbithole to be going down....

I'm pretty sure if nukes were going off in the ME, no matter how small ... it would cause a huge international incident.

Trust me on this, you can't set off even a small nuke and governments not freak out.