What?! Nuclear Hoax

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Facts?

Facts?

Anyone?

Turbo has never needed any facts. He simply makes claims based on the way the Universe works in his head, rubbishes mercilessly any and all facts that prove that his talking rubbish and then repeats things in the hope that people will forget that he said the same thing a few pages back.

At least he somehow hasn't slipped his Flat Earth silliness into this thread.

It is a fact that no 'bald spot', or 'vaporization zone', was found at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

It is a fact that the 'A-bomb' is supposed to create such a 'bald spot', which would distinguish a nuclear attack from any other type of attack, such as conventional bombs, or firebombs.

Do you claim these are NOT facts? If so, then you need to explain why they are not facts, with actual evidence to back your claim.

I've had enough of you avoiding the specific points I've raised, with your nonsensical posts that say ' Facts?', and ignore the facts I've actually presented here.

Why don't you simply address the facts I've presented, such as those above?

You're not afraid to address only two, very basic points....are you?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
What personal attack?

Are you serious? All of these blatantly false accusations about me being a 'troll', is a classic example of a personal attack.

Why not look at the definition of it, first of all...

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain

In a nutshell, a person who has no other intent, but to provoke emotional responses, is a 'troll'.

To accuse someone of being a 'troll', is also used for a personal attack. This is when someone is genuinely presenting his viewpoint on an issue, with evidence to support that view, but others only try to slander his character, by calling him a 'troll'. They often sift through his posts, hoping to pick out anything which may be useful to attack, or twist, his position as silly, or foolish. If they cannot pick out something, they simply call him a 'troll', and never address his points at all.

Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.

en.wikipedia.org...

When you, and others, have constantly called me a 'troll', it is nothing more than a personal attack, which isn't allowed on this forum, or most other forums either. Because the forum will get a bad reputation, which hurts the forum, in various ways, if the behavior is allowed to continue, unabated.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
The science which explains how nuclear reactions work is real.
Its up to you to show us how that science is wrong.
Over to you. If you can.
Im waiting.

What 'science' are you referring to here? What "explains" it as "real"?

It's the usual 'prove the science wrong' argument, which hopes to impress people by using the term 'science' over and over again!

When I hear someone say I need to prove the 'science', and the 'scientists', are wrong, it makes me cringe.

Evidence doesn't have anything to do with anyone, or any group of people, labeled as 'authorities', or 'experts'.

It is only evidence that matters, not who claims something as true, or a fact.

a reply to: turbonium1

If the cap fits and all that...
You have been presented with an awful lot of "evidence" which you just dismiss. Like you have dismissed "science".
Science is a thing although you neither like nor understand it.
How many people would need to be in on this nuclear "hoax" of yours?
Thousands more than your supposed moon landing "hoax" of yours.
And why?
Sorry. - you have nothing. No evidence at all.
Just you not understanding stuff.

originally posted by: turbonium1

When I hear someone say I need to prove the 'science', and the 'scientists', are wrong, it makes me cringe.

Prove the science wrong.
Prove the scientists wrong.
Prove the science wrong.
Prove the scientists wrong.
Prove the science wrong.
Prove the scientists wrong.
Prove the science wrong.
Prove the scientists wrong.

Evidence doesn't have anything to do with anyone, or any group of people, labeled as 'authorities', or 'experts'.

It is only evidence that matters, not who claims something as true, or a fact.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Prove the whole of human science and knowledge wrong too.
Good luck with that!

a reply to: turbonium1

It is only evidence that matters, not who claims something as true, or a fact.

You, obviously, don't believe that at all, since you ignore the evidence that many have presented to you...all of which is verifiable with a modicum of effort. Ignore it, in favor of what you, supposedly, claim is true.

Irony?? I'd say so.

US created a moon race and nuke race, against russia.

Just cause us 6 faked moon landings so far, doesn't mean the moon's a hoax.

No doubt us stacked explosives and claimed first nuke test first.

But IS REALLY ruthless enuf to nuke civilians, in various ways nowadays.

originally posted by: serpo
US created a moon race and nuke race, against russia.

Just cause us 6 faked moon landings so far, doesn't mean the moon's a hoax.

No doubt us stacked explosives and claimed first nuke test first.

But IS REALLY ruthless enuf to nuke civilians, in various ways nowadays.

Perhaps you should go pay a visit to Russia, and go drink some water around lake karachay (if you can find any available or get near it)

Then you can come tell us if that's fake or not

originally posted by: serpo
US created a moon race and nuke race, against russia.

Just cause us 6 faked moon landings so far, doesn't mean the moon's a hoax.

No doubt us stacked explosives and claimed first nuke test first.

But IS REALLY ruthless enuf to nuke civilians, in various ways nowadays.

Just because a Conspiracy Nutter says the US faked 6 moon landings so far has as much validity as me saying I just saw a million hobbits marching through my backyard.

a reply to: opethPA

Hobbits, phhfft. Not real.

Underpants gnomes are.

Im just curious as to why people think its a hoax
when they are spending your tax dollars on weapons of mass destruction

this article
from Covert Action Magazine

Interview with Legendary whistle blower Daniel Ellsberg following his 89th arrest for resisting nuclear weapons, nuclear war, and government secracy

One of the things I learned today from talks given at Lawrence Livermore Labs was that for the past seven years, each budget for nuclear weapons has increased. In particular it was true in 2015 under Obama, who increased it to over Cold War levels. The peak of Cold War spending was in 1985. Spending went down with the fall of the Soviet Union until the second Bush came into power. We’re back at Cold War levels, $9 billion per year. From 2015 till now, each year the budget has risen. It didn’t start under Trump. But right now, under Trump, we are budgeting 40% higher than in the Cold War. It is obscene, it is crazy, it is wrong.

TRUMP DOESNT DO HOAXES

originally posted by: DocScurlock1774
a reply to: patrononice

If you watch the nuclear test site videos, everything is obliterated, buildings are all but vaporized. But some how the camera stays fully intact and doesn't even move. You would think you would see some kind of reaction from the camera when at ground zero of a nuke.

The cameras were coated in led and cemented in place. Here is some info on the cameras they used

High-Speed Photography | Atomic Heritage Foundation
www.atomicheritage.org...

a reply to: Phage

step 1: Get underpants
step 2:????
step 3: PROFIT

originally posted by: serpo
US created a moon race and nuke race, against russia.

Just cause us 6 faked moon landings so far, doesn't mean the moon's a hoax.

No doubt us stacked explosives and claimed first nuke test first.

But IS REALLY ruthless enuf to nuke civilians, in various ways nowadays.

Stacked explosives?
Are you sure?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: turbonium1

If the cap fits and all that...
You have been presented with an awful lot of "evidence" which you just dismiss. Like you have dismissed "science".
Science is a thing although you neither like nor understand it.
How many people would need to be in on this nuclear "hoax" of yours?
Thousands more than your supposed moon landing "hoax" of yours.
And why?
Sorry. - you have nothing. No evidence at all.
Just you not understanding stuff.

Same old arguments, as always.

The 'we've presented all this evidence' argument.

The 'how many people would need to be in on it' argument.

The 'you just don't understand it' argument.


I've explained why the 'evidence' you believe is there, is nothing but second hand claims made by the people who support the lie. It is worthless. Proof is not someone's claim, or a group's claim, especially when the claim is made by those who are paid to make such claims.

The number of people who 'need to know' is completely irrelevant, because a lie isn't limited to a certain 'number' of people, and beyond that, a lie cannot be kept secret. And those who really 'need to know' is a small number, because everyone else is simply rank and file workers, who have no idea of the big picture, just their own little area of it.

There's nothing we cannot 'understand' about it, by using our own brains, instead of believing whatever is said about it by so-called 'experts', who are paid to make such claims.


Look at the images of Tokyo, and compare them to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is the real evidence here. Look at how there is no 'bald spot' at the two cities which were supposedly 'nuked'. Why is there no 'bald spot', as a 'nuke' is claimed to leave? Try to explain how this is possible, if 'nukes' were really used.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: turbonium1

It is only evidence that matters, not who claims something as true, or a fact.

You, obviously, don't believe that at all, since you ignore the evidence that many have presented to you...all of which is verifiable with a modicum of effort. Ignore it, in favor of what you, supposedly, claim is true.

Irony?? I'd say so.

Address the question of why ''nukes' left no 'bald spot' at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, if you can...

a reply to: turbonium1

Air burst vs ground burst. An air burst never touches the ground so there's no damage directly below it. You can stand directly under an air burst and suffer no effect from it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

Air burst vs ground burst. An air burst never touches the ground so there's no damage directly below it. You can stand directly under an air burst and suffer no effect from it.

That is not their claim about 'nukes', however. They claim 'nukes' vaporize everything within a half-mile or so radius, which leaves a signature 'bald spot', where nothing remains at all.

I'm simply going by their own claim, which proves to be false.