BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de façade van alledag ligt.
Here's a few reasons/contributing factors (not in order of importance) which make me think that the stories we have been taught/told (or NOT) over the last 70+ years about the atomic bombings are not true.
Reasons to believe it (or not !)
- There is no difference between the 'atomic' bombings or the 1940's napalm bombings aftermath imagery.
- There are remarkable similarities (or no differences at all) between 'atomic' and fire-bomb casualties photos.
- The word 'atomic' was first used by H.G. Wells in the 1914 SF novel The World Set Free.
- Fire-bombs (napalm) were invented as early as 1943.
- The B29 'nuke' bomber was new, hampered by technical faults and known to be unreliable. Why use it to carry such an important, highly dangerous payload?
- Almost all of the buildings destroyed were made of paper and wood.
- The miraculous survival adventures, and that none of the 'atomic' bomb survivors were even recognised by their own government until 1957. There were also many reports of there being double (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) survivors and yet only ONE has been recognised by the government and that wasn't until 2009....only months before his death at the ripe old age of ninety-three.
- The vague, ridiculous or simply impossible witness accounts.Melted eyes/skin etc.
- Iconic photos of the event were faked/manipulated/miscaptioned.
- The 'atomic' bomb explosion test footage was of 100-ton TNT explosions which were allegedly used to imitate and 'test' the effects of an 'atomic' bomb, but was much more likely used in some of the thousands of crude fear propaganda films.
- That thousands of fear propaganda fims were made at Lookout Mountain, a huge military intelligence installation/studio – the biggest and best equipped in Hollywood at the time. There are also Los Alamos and Oak Ridge Laboratories.
- The hysterical, unproven stories of radiation poisoning, increase in cancer rates, babies with hereditary birth defects due to the effects of an atomic bomb and the huge tracts of land which we were told would be left uninhabitable for centuries after such an event....all of which appeared in military propaganda/ mainstream media over decades and have been shown NOT to be true or at the very least, highly questionable.
- The alleged 'atomic' bomb was tested for the first time only a few weeks before the 'atomic' bombings allegedly took place.
- Japan was already defeated. The Japanese navy had lost the vast majority of its fleet. The people were already starving. There was no need to use such a destructive, powerful weapon as an 'atomic' bomb....the new fire-bomb (napalm) weapon was more than enough to force Japan into surrendering.
- Tramcars were working only a few days after the 'atomic' event allegedly took place.
Tegenreactie:
In verschillende topics, word er naar voren geschoven dat Atoom wapens onzin zijn.
Verdere info is eigenlijk niet nodig!
Mooie docu over nukes!
Schaalmodelhuisje wordt weggevaagd:
Fearmongering:
If the official 'atomic' bomb stories were true – the lies/manipulation/propaganda would not be necessary.
I also believed it up until a few years ago, so it's never too late for anyone (or for some people at least) to be brave enough and change their minds..
Don't be shy, feel free to state a few simple, but specific reasons why you believe the atomic bomb stories.
[ Bericht 3% gewijzigd door SuperHartje op 20-07-2019 23:01:20 ]
Reasons to believe it (or not !)
- There is no difference between the 'atomic' bombings or the 1940's napalm bombings aftermath imagery.
- There are remarkable similarities (or no differences at all) between 'atomic' and fire-bomb casualties photos.
- The word 'atomic' was first used by H.G. Wells in the 1914 SF novel The World Set Free.
- Fire-bombs (napalm) were invented as early as 1943.
- The B29 'nuke' bomber was new, hampered by technical faults and known to be unreliable. Why use it to carry such an important, highly dangerous payload?
- Almost all of the buildings destroyed were made of paper and wood.
- The miraculous survival adventures, and that none of the 'atomic' bomb survivors were even recognised by their own government until 1957. There were also many reports of there being double (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) survivors and yet only ONE has been recognised by the government and that wasn't until 2009....only months before his death at the ripe old age of ninety-three.
- The vague, ridiculous or simply impossible witness accounts.Melted eyes/skin etc.
- Iconic photos of the event were faked/manipulated/miscaptioned.
- The 'atomic' bomb explosion test footage was of 100-ton TNT explosions which were allegedly used to imitate and 'test' the effects of an 'atomic' bomb, but was much more likely used in some of the thousands of crude fear propaganda films.
- That thousands of fear propaganda fims were made at Lookout Mountain, a huge military intelligence installation/studio – the biggest and best equipped in Hollywood at the time. There are also Los Alamos and Oak Ridge Laboratories.
- The hysterical, unproven stories of radiation poisoning, increase in cancer rates, babies with hereditary birth defects due to the effects of an atomic bomb and the huge tracts of land which we were told would be left uninhabitable for centuries after such an event....all of which appeared in military propaganda/ mainstream media over decades and have been shown NOT to be true or at the very least, highly questionable.
- The alleged 'atomic' bomb was tested for the first time only a few weeks before the 'atomic' bombings allegedly took place.
- Japan was already defeated. The Japanese navy had lost the vast majority of its fleet. The people were already starving. There was no need to use such a destructive, powerful weapon as an 'atomic' bomb....the new fire-bomb (napalm) weapon was more than enough to force Japan into surrendering.
- Tramcars were working only a few days after the 'atomic' event allegedly took place.
Tegenreactie:
..................................................................quote:Op donderdag 18 juli 2019 06:22 schreef illusions het volgende:
- Wat is het belangrijkste scheikundige feit wat kernreacties zou kunnen ontkrachten? (ex. "filmpje klopt niet")
In verschillende topics, word er naar voren geschoven dat Atoom wapens onzin zijn.
Verdere info is eigenlijk niet nodig!
Mooie docu over nukes!
Schaalmodelhuisje wordt weggevaagd:
Fearmongering:
If the official 'atomic' bomb stories were true – the lies/manipulation/propaganda would not be necessary.
I also believed it up until a few years ago, so it's never too late for anyone (or for some people at least) to be brave enough and change their minds..
Don't be shy, feel free to state a few simple, but specific reasons why you believe the atomic bomb stories.
[ Bericht 3% gewijzigd door SuperHartje op 20-07-2019 23:01:20 ]
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Ik zie dat een inhoudelijke reactie weer teveel gevraagt was. Misschien moet je het nog eens proberen.quote:
[..]
Ah yes – the good old ‘it’s really all very simple’ . You began your ‘vooral EMP’ post with the same words, after which you made a string of unsubstantiated claims. It really isn’t ‘all very simple’…..as the vast majority of people do not understand a fuck of what you are on about.
You give one link to some space technology bullshit and the rest we are supposed to take your word for it. You should know better - as I’ve stated several times over the years, I don’t trust you or your opinions.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Dat klopt, daarom kijk ik ook geen reclamequote:
We’ve all been victims of propaganda and indoctrination for one reason or another at some point in our lives.
Maar hoe dat jij stelling onderbouwt is me volslagen onduidelijk. Zo kun je de platte aarde ook rechtvaardigen.
Ik schrijf boeken over wetenschap en filosofie!
https://www.epsilon-uitga(...)e-tijd-materie/10996
https://www.spectrumboeke(...)k-niet-9789000386765
https://www.spectrumboeke(...)tronen-9789000395071
https://www.epsilon-uitga(...)e-tijd-materie/10996
https://www.spectrumboeke(...)k-niet-9789000386765
https://www.spectrumboeke(...)tronen-9789000395071
Oh en nog iets, als Haushofer iets ziet in mijn versimpeld verhaal om te corrigeren dan hoor ik dat graag. Zijn kennis van natuurkunde is stukken beter dan die van mijquote:
[..]
Ah yes – the good old ‘it’s really all very simple’ . You began your ‘vooral EMP’ post with the same words, after which you made a string of unsubstantiated claims. It really isn’t ‘all very simple’…..as the vast majority of people do not understand a fuck of what you are on about.
You give one link to some space technology bullshit and the rest we are supposed to take your word for it. You should know better - as I’ve stated several times over the years, I don’t trust you or your opinions.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Zo werkt bewijslast niet.quote:
[..]
What scientific evidence?
Don't be shy, feel free to state a few simple, but specific reasons why you believe the atomic bomb stories.
You should be able to easily find some in the 'gazillion amount of books and reports' and the 'numerous witness reports or countless casualties'.
Tuurlijk beschik ik zelf niet over de kennis om de wetenschappelijke theorieën te bewijzen, dat betekent niet dat het niet kan. Jouw enige stok om mee te slaan zijn opmerkingen zoals "dit ziet er nep uit" bij YouTube filmpjes. 
Je zou natuurlijk eens kunnen proberen om inhoudelijk op de natuurkundige kant in te gaan zoals ATuin-hek dat beschrijft in zijn post. Je wilt beweren dat kernenergie niet bestaat? Of alleen niet weaponised? Dit lijk je steeds maar te ontwijken.
Weer mooi de vraag van hekje ontweken, waarom had ik niet anders verwacht?
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
Zijn lijst bezwaren gaan ook vrijwel alleen over de twee bommen op Japan. Alsof alles sindsdien niet relevant is of zo.quote:
[..]
Zo werkt bewijslast niet.
Je zou natuurlijk eens kunnen proberen om inhoudelijk op de natuurkundige kant in te gaan zoals ATuin-hek dat beschrijft in zijn post. Je wilt beweren dat kernenergie niet bestaat? Of alleen niet weaponised? Dit lijk je steeds maar te ontwijken.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
quote:
Some sources claim the alleged atomic bomb was tested for the first time only a few weeks before the atomic bombings allegedly took place. Japan was already defeated according to some critics. The Japanese navy had lost the vast majority of its fleet. The people were already starving. They say there wasn't any need to use such a destructive, powerful weapon as an atomic bomb....the new fire-bomb (napalm) weapon could have been more than enough, according to some. Still, certain critics believe it has indeed been a napalm attack, for atomic weapons supposedly do not exist.
You tend to only present things as facts when it suits you. At least also put forward your own arguments in the way they should be presented: just one side of the story.
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door SuperHartje op 28-02-2019 16:16:22 ]
A child is born with no state of mind.
Maar dat "the new fire-bomb (napalm) weapon was more than enough" snap ik niet echt.
Ten opzichte van wat? Atoombommen bestaan toch zogenaamd niet?
Ten opzichte van wat? Atoombommen bestaan toch zogenaamd niet?
For clarity and the benefit of people who are genuinely interested in this topic:
Napalm bombs were more than enough to get Japan to finally surrender despite being defeated already.
Napalm bombs were more than enough to get Japan to finally surrender despite being defeated already.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Heb je nog wat zinnigs te melden over mijn post over de natuurkunde achter kernwapens?quote:
For clarity and the benefit of people who are genuinely interested in this topic:
Napalm bombs were more than enough to get Japan to finally surrender despite being defeated already.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Napalm was genoeg, maar ze hebben dus kennelijk iets zwaarders gebruikt zeg je? Atoombommen toevallig?quote:
For clarity and the benefit of people who are genuinely interested in this topic:
Napalm bombs were more than enough to get Japan to finally surrender despite being defeated already.
Een miljoen soldaten die met fakkels de stad in lopen was ook genoeg geweest, dus eigenlijk bestaat napalm ook niet?quote:
[..]
Napalm was genoeg, maar ze hebben dus kennelijk iets zwaarders gebruikt zeg je? Atoombommen toevallig?
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Nou, ik probeerde meer duidelijk te maken dat Tingo impliceert dat er iets zwaarders dan napalm is gebruikt. Wat zou dat zwaardere geweest zijn dan? Dan impliceert hij dus dat atoombommen wel degelijk bestaan.quote:
[..]
Een miljoen soldaten die met fakkels de stad in lopen was ook genoeg geweest, dus eigenlijk bestaat napalm ook niet?
Dat ook jaquote:
[..]
Nou, ik probeerde meer duidelijk te maken dat Tingo impliceert dat er iets zwaarders dan napalm is gebruikt. Wat zou dat zwaardere geweest zijn dan? Dan impliceert hij dus dat atoombommen wel degelijk bestaan.
Imo is het zo'n vreemde gedachtegang, want waarom is het bestaan van napalm een bewijs dat nukes niet bestaan? Dat iets anders ook ergens genoeg voor kan zijn wil niet zeggen dat de complexere optie niet kan bestaan.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Volgens mij vindt hij het eerder net iets te toevallig dat het rond ongeveer dezelfde tijd werd uitgevonden, en zodoende dus redeneert dat atoombommen wel napalm in een ander jasje moeten zijn. Dat is eenzelfde soort redenering als "we zijn nooit naar de ruimte geweest omdat ik zelf niet in de shuttle zat."quote:
[..]
Dat ook ja
Ik kan nog steeds niet echt geloven dat mensen dit echt ontkennen.
Zal leuk zijn op van die kringverjaardagen.
No.quote:
[..]
Napalm was genoeg, maar ze hebben dus kennelijk iets zwaarders gebruikt zeg je? Atoombommen toevallig?
I wrote : 'Napalm bombs were MORE THAN ENOUGH'.
In other words – even fire-bombs were not needed to enforce the surrender of Japan.
You are trying to put words in my mouth again, using basically the same desperate 'discussion' tactic as the copying and editing of my earlier post.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Dat heb ik helemaal niet geimpliceert.quote:
[..]
Nou, ik probeerde meer duidelijk te maken dat Tingo impliceert dat er iets zwaarders dan napalm is gebruikt. Wat zou dat zwaardere geweest zijn dan? Dan impliceert hij dus dat atoombommen wel degelijk bestaan.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Was jij maar Generaal van de strijdkrachten in die tijd. Met dit diepe militaire inzicht had de hele wereldoorlog voorkomen kunnen worden!quote:
[..]
No.
I wrote : 'Napalm bombs were MORE THAN ENOUGH'.
Conscience do cost.
I didn't claim it was. Opinions are not facts as we all know, theories are not facts either.quote:
I posted a list of easy to understand practical reasons/contributing factors/facts I've learned a little about (over the past couple of years or so) as to why I do not believe the 'atomic' bombings.
My opinion about the 'atomic' bomb issue is based on practical reasons rather than scientific theories.
There is no reason for me to waste my time getting into another silly, psuedoscientific argument with you or anyone else for that matter.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
I already posted a 'zinnig' reply to your 'natuurkundige' post.quote:
[..]
Heb je nog wat zinnigs te melden over mijn post over de natuurkunde achter kernwapens?
Here it is again in case you missed it:
quote:
[..]
Ah yes – the good old ‘it’s really all very simple’ . You began your ‘vooral EMP’ post with the same words, after which you made a string of unsubstantiated claims. It really isn’t ‘all very simple’…..as the vast majority of people do not understand a fuck of what you are on about.
You give one link to some space technology bullshit and the rest we are supposed to take your word for it. You should know better - as I’ve stated several times over the years, I don’t trust you or your opinions.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Ja, heel zinnig. M.a.w. je hebt geen flauw idee en je geeft het nog toe ook. Dus het zou zomaar kunnen dat atoomwapens wel bestaan he?
M.a.w. je hebt geen flauw idee en je geeft het nog toe ook. Dus het zou zomaar kunnen dat atoomwapens wel bestaan he?
Jep, als je zegt dat napalm meer dan genoeg was, impliceer je daarmee dat er dus een ander type bom is gebruikt, waarmee je dus al zegt dat het een sterker wapen was, een atoombom maybe? Dat jij je mening niet goed kunt verwoorden, ligt niet aan mij.quote:
[..]
No.
I wrote : 'Napalm bombs were MORE THAN ENOUGH'.
In other words – even fire-bombs were not needed to enforce the surrender of Japan.
You are trying to put words in my mouth again, using basically the same desperate 'discussion' tactic as the copying and editing of my earlier post.
Maar zeg eens, beweer je nu dat kernenergie niet bestaat, of alleen dat kernwapens niet bestaan? (Ik weet stiekem ook wel dat je hier niet op in kan gaan, want dan heb je geen poot meer om op te staan)
No you didn't. Je vond het daar nodig om weer lekker te gaan zitten vitten op (zelfverzonnen) bijzaken. Je hebt de link niet eens goed gelezen, want dan had je gezien dat RTGs ook op aarde zijn gebruikt. Je hoeft mijn woord er helemaal niet voor te nemen, aantonen waar ik het verkeerd heb werkt ook prima.quote:
[..]
I already posted a 'zinnig' reply to your 'natuurkundige' post.
Here it is again in case you missed it:
[..]
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Yeah you did. Jij stelde zelf dat je een lijst met facts had gepost.quote:
Zelfs dat zijn het niet. Je komt niet verder dan wat handwaving, zonder dat verder te onderbouwen... Sure, er zitten mogelijke facts tussen, waarvan het ook nog eens de vraag is waarom die er toe doen.quote:Opinions are not facts as we all know, theories are not facts either.
I posted a list of easy to understand practical reasons/contributing factors/facts I've learned a little about (over the past couple of years or so) as to why I do not believe the 'atomic' bombings.
My opinion about the 'atomic' bomb issue is based on practical reasons rather than scientific theories.
There is no reason for me to waste my time getting into another silly, psuedoscientific argument with you or anyone else for that matter.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
En waarom is dat een argument dat kernwapens niet bestaan?quote:
[..]
No.
I wrote : 'Napalm bombs were MORE THAN ENOUGH'.
In other words – even fire-bombs were not needed to enforce the surrender of Japan.
You are trying to put words in my mouth again, using basically the same desperate 'discussion' tactic as the copying and editing of my earlier post.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Yes I did. No I didn't. Yeah but, no butquote:
[..]
No you didn't. Je vond het daar nodig om weer lekker te gaan zitten vitten op (zelfverzonnen) bijzaken. Je hebt de link niet eens goed gelezen, want dan had je gezien dat RTGs ook op aarde zijn gebruikt. Je hoeft mijn woord er helemaal niet voor te nemen, aantonen waar ik het verkeerd heb werkt ook prima.
Radioisotope thermoelectric generator. Sounds like something out of a Sci-Fi novel, but anyway I read about half of it.
Invented in 1954, nine years after the events we are trying to discuss took place. Handig. Used to power satellites and space probes. Oh great – that's supposed to make all the 'nukist' bullshit all suddenly make sense and be totally true is it? Ajb zeg. But if that works for you.ok.
I don't need to discuss 'atomic' science, thank you very much.
The vast majority of people understand practical reasons way better than 'atomic/nuclear' scientistic theory.
Read the simple list I posted and challenge the points/facts which you don't agree with in a specific, practical, reasonable manner please.
Over de 'mogelijk feiten die tussen zitten', welke zou dat zijn? En waarom?
Do you do non-scientistic discussion?
Maybe you could post a list of practical reasons (which more people will understand) as to why you believe the 'atomic' bomb attack stories.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
It was a reaction to your new sidekick. He desperately keeps trying to imply things I did not imply.quote:
[..]
En waarom is dat een argument dat kernwapens niet bestaan?
It's a bit pitiful really.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Hier is maar 1 reactie op mogelijk:quote:
[..]
Yes I did. No I didn't. Yeah but, no but
Radioisotope thermoelectric generator. Sounds like something out of a Sci-Fi novel, but anyway I read about half of it.
Invented in 1954, nine years after the events we are trying to discuss took place. Handig. Used to power satellites and space probes. Oh great – that's supposed to make all the 'nukist' bullshit all suddenly make sense and be totally true is it? Ajb zeg. But if that works for you.ok.
I don't need to discuss 'atomic' science, thank you very much.
The vast majority of people understand practical reasons way better than 'atomic/nuclear' scientistic theory.
Read the simple list I posted and challenge the points/facts which you don't agree with in a specific, practical, reasonable manner please.
Over de 'mogelijk feiten die tussen zitten', welke zou dat zijn? En waarom?
Do you do non-scientistic discussion?
Maybe you could post a list of practical reasons (which more people will understand) as to why you believe the 'atomic' bomb attack stories.
Ik weet wel een hele simpele praktische reden ja: ooggetuigen. Zitten die allemaal in het complot?
En nog 1, hoe fake je dit met conventionele explosieven:
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Maar hoe is het dan een argument tegen het bestaan van kernwapens?quote:
[..]
It was a reaction to your new sidekick. He desperately keeps trying to imply things I did not imply.
It's a bit pitiful really.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
My fucking god you're so full of shit, you're actually asking to start a non-scientific discussion to prove or disprove a scientific theory? Are you that daft?quote:
[..]
Yes I did. No I didn't. Yeah but, no but
Radioisotope thermoelectric generator. Sounds like something out of a Sci-Fi novel, but anyway I read about half of it.
Invented in 1954, nine years after the events we are trying to discuss took place. Handig. Used to power satellites and space probes. Oh great – that's supposed to make all the 'nukist' bullshit all suddenly make sense and be totally true is it? Ajb zeg. But if that works for you.ok.
I don't need to discuss 'atomic' science, thank you very much.
The vast majority of people understand practical reasons way better than 'atomic/nuclear' scientistic theory.
Read the simple list I posted and challenge the points/facts which you don't agree with in a specific, practical, reasonable manner please.
Over de 'mogelijk feiten die tussen zitten', welke zou dat zijn? En waarom?
Do you do non-scientistic discussion?
Maybe you could post a list of practical reasons (which more people will understand) as to why you believe the 'atomic' bomb attack stories.
What's next, are you gonna disprove the Pythagoras theorem with psychology?
It's a fact that nuclear weapons can only be disproven if you can prove the current science/tech does not or can not work, but since your physics knowledge is next to none, i guess that's where you fail and start seeking non-scientific mumbo jumbo to discredit proper scientific and peer-proven theories.
Laughable.
Sad, but nonetheless laughable.
Voor jou wel.quote:
[..]
Hier is maar 1 reactie op mogelijk:
Ik weet wel een hele simpele praktische reden ja: ooggetuigen. Zitten die allemaal in het complot?
That's all you've got! LOL!
Witness testimony can often be notoriously unreliable for all kinds of reasons....as many of us understand from other more recent events. Witnesses can be paid, planted, terribly mistaken, pressured into making statements which can be exaggerated/sensationalised by the media for propaganda purposes etc.
If people want to carry on believing the ridiculous witness/survival stories, that's up to them.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
That's not all. There's an incredibly large portion of arguments which you refuse to get into - anything scientific, for example.quote:
[..]
Voor jou wel.
That's all you've got! LOL!
Witness testimony can often be notoriously unreliable for all kinds of reasons....as many of us understand from other more recent events. Witnesses can be paid, planted, terribly mistaken, pressured into making statements which can be exaggerated/sensationalised by the media for propaganda purposes etc.
If people want to carry on believing the ridiculous witness/survival stories, that's up to them.
Pretty weird, seeing you're trying to disprove a scientific theory.
Behalve als die witnesses iets zeggen dat in het straatje past natuurlijk. 
Dan is het opeens nieuw en interessant.
Dan is het opeens nieuw en interessant.
Conscience do cost.
Vergeet YouTube reacties niet. Goeie graadmeter.quote:
Behalve als die witnesses iets zeggen dat in het straatje past natuurlijk.
I don't refuse to get into - I don't need to get intoquote:
[..]
That's not all. There's an incredibly large portion of arguments which you refuse to get into - anything scientific, for example.
Theory is not practice. Most people understand practical reasons rather scientistic theory.
Bye now! Professor illusions.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
You still can't disprove a scientific theory using psychology, which proves your psychology is also sub-par.quote:
[..]
I don't refuse to get into - I don't need to get into
Theory is not practice. Most people understand practical reasons rather scientistic theory.
Bye now!
By the way, it seems you also refuse. You're not getting into anything scientific, but you're not refusing to? How does that work? We're still talking about a scientific matter here.
I've listed practical reasons - not psychology.....or scientistic theory.quote:
[..]
You still can't disprove a scientific theory using psychology, which proves your psychology is also sub-par.
Please feel free to challenge the points in the list I posted.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
I don't need to, the scientific evidence speaks for itself.quote:
I've listed practical reasons - not psychology.....or scientistic theory.
Practical reasons, lol. It looks fake, so it must be.
I'm not,but you are desperately to do so.quote:
[..]
You still can't disprove a scientific theory using psychology, which proves your psychology is also sub-par.
By the way, it seems you also refuse. You're not getting into anything scientific, but you're not refusing to? How does that work? We're still talking about a scientific matter here.
Feel free to challenge the list I posted.
Try and be specific.
I might come back after doing the washing up.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
They are only practical to you. You are denying a scientific matter, yet using another form of reasoning. That in itself makes absolutely no sense.quote:
[..]
I'm not,but you are desperately to do so.
Feel free to challenge the list I posted.
Try and be specific.
I might come back after doing the washing up.
Do you believe nuclear energy is fake, or only nuclear weapons?
Can you answer that one question please?
Je haalt een deel van de post weg uit de quote, negeert andere posts of durft er niet op in te gaan, en hebt het lef om met een "That's all you've got" te komen?quote:
[..]
Voor jou wel.
That's all you've got! LOL!
Witness testimony can often be notoriously unreliable for all kinds of reasons....as many of us understand from other more recent events. Witnesses can be paid, planted, terribly mistaken, pressured into making statements which can be exaggerated/sensationalised by the media for propaganda purposes etc.
If people want to carry on believing the ridiculous witness/survival stories, that's up to them.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Hoe is het bestaan van napalm een reden om te geloven dat nukes niet (kunnen) bestaan?quote:
[..]
I've listed practical reasons - not psychology.....or scientistic theory.
Please feel free to challenge the points in the list I posted.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Oh yes there is, damage from atomic bombs is way more extensive and causes numerous side effects that napalm doesn't.quote:Op maandag 25 februari 2019 04:35 schreef Tingo het volgende:
Here's a few reasons/contributing factors (not in order of importance) which make me think that the stories we have been taught/told (or NOT) over the last 70+ years about the atomic bombings are not true.
There is no difference between that of the 'atomic' or the 1940's napalm bombings aftermath imagery.
They both have the ability to burn people, so that's pretty logical.quote:The remarkable similarities between 'atomic' and fire-bomb casualties photos.
How does that prove anything?quote:That the word 'atomic' was first used by H.G. Wells in the 1914 SF novel The World Set Free.
Again, totally unrelated. They probably invented a whole lot more shit around that time, so what?quote:That fire-bombs (napalm) were invented as early as 1943.
Because it was the best option at the time considering all the parameters.quote:That the B29 'nuke' bomber was new, hampered by technical faults and known to be unreliable.
Why use it to carry such an important, highly dangerous payload?
You're speaking about Japan during WW2, of course almost all buildings are just paper and wood. That's very usual for Japan.quote:The fact that almost all of the buildings destroyed were made of paper and wood.
Recognition leads to a shitload of claims, and costs a lot of money. This does not mean at all that nuclear weapons don't exist.quote:The miraculous survival adventures, and that none of the 'atomic' bomb survivors were even recognised by their own government until 1957. There were also many reports of there being double (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) survivors and yet only ONE has been recognised by the government and that wasn't until 2009....only months before his death at the ripe old age of 93.
Just as vague as your list. No reason atomic energy doesn't exist.quote:The vague witness accounts.
Because it looks fake to you, doesn't mean it is fake. Even if it is fake, it still doesn't disprove nuclear weapons.quote:That iconic photos of the event were faked/manipulated/miscaptioned.
Any source to back up that this was in fact not nuclear?quote:That the 'atomic' bomb explosion test footage was 100-tons of TNT allegedly used to imitate and 'test' the effects of an 'atomic' bomb but was very likely used in some of the thousands of crude fear propaganda films.
Oh, maybe because they wanted to record it, and it was as you say yourself, the biggest and best military intelligence installation?quote:That thousands of fear propaganda fims were made at Lookout Mountain, a huge military intelligence installation/studio – the biggest and best equipped in Hollywood at the time.
There are a lot of examples of these cases to indeed happen, why are they not true? E.g. cancer patients, numerous birth defects from people that were near nuclear blasts or nuclear installation meltdowns, etc. How have you disproven this?quote:The hysterical, unproven stories of radiation poisoning, increase in cancer rates, babies with hereditary birth defects due to the effects of an atomic bomb and the huge tracts of land which we were told would be left uninhabitable for centuries after such an event....all of which have been shown NOT to be true.
So? Does this prove nuclear weapons do not exist?quote:The alleged 'atomic' bomb was tested for the first time only a few weeks before the 'atomic' bombings allegedly took place.
A lot of things happen in war that were not necessary. This does not disprove at all that a nuclear weapon does not exist.quote:Japan was already defeated. The Japanese navy had lost the vast majority of its fleet. The people were already starving. There wasn't any need to use such a destructive, powerful weapon as an 'atomic' bomb....the new fire-bomb (napalm) weapon was more than enough.
Same shit.quote:If the official 'atomic' bomb stories were true – the lies/manipulation/propaganda would not be necessary.
quote:Verdere info is eigenlijk niet nodig!
There. All your questions answered.
Could you please provide us with answers to the following?
1.) Do you believe nuclear energy exists?
2.) Do you believe nuclear energy does exist, but nuclear weapons don't?
3.) How does the existence of napalm disprove the existence of nuclear energy/weapons?
They're just 3 easy questions for a genius like you, since i just answered all yours, please indulge us in your wisdom.
Kan me niet aan de indruk onttrekken dat veel mensen die in dit soort absurde theorieën geloven vroeger ook vooraan hadden gestaan bij het op de brandstapel gooien van mensen wegens hekserij. Als je iets niet begrijpt is dat prima, probeer je gewoon in te lezen. Begrijp je het daarna nog steeds niet dan moet je jezelf afvragen wat waarschijnlijker is; dat er wereldwijd een enorm complot gaande is of dat je zelf gewoon niet zo'n helder licht bent.
Klopt. Inlezen heeft voor veel van hen geen zin. De tekst is namelijk opgeschreven door mensen die in het complot zitten of die 'gehersenspoeld' zijn. Die ene amateuruploader op YouTube is onafhankelijk en heeft dus geen agenda en uiteraard veel verstand van zaken. Anders zou die er ook niet zo'n spannend muziekje onderzetten natuurlijk.quote:
Kan me niet aan de indruk onttrekken dat veel mensen die in dit soort absurde theorieën geloven vroeger ook vooraan hadden gestaan bij het op de brandstapel gooien van mensen wegens hekserij. Als je iets niet begrijpt is dat prima, probeer je gewoon in te lezen. Begrijp je het daarna nog steeds niet dan moet je jezelf afvragen wat waarschijnlijker is; dat er wereldwijd een enorm complot gaande is of dat je zelf gewoon niet zo'n helder licht bent.
Ontopic: Weet iemand wanneer deze theorie zijn piek heeft gehaald in het verleden?
Het antwoord op de belangrijkste vraag van alle vragen? 42!
Kan nooit een hoge piek zijn geweest.quote:
[..]
Klopt. Inlezen heeft voor veel van hen geen zin. De tekst is namelijk opgeschreven door mensen die in het complot zitten of die 'gehersenspoeld' zijn. Die ene amateuruploader op YouTube is onafhankelijk en heeft dus geen agenda en uiteraard veel verstand van zaken. Anders zou die er ook niet zo'n spannend muziekje onderzetten natuurlijk.
Ontopic: Weet iemand wanneer deze theorie zijn piek heeft gehaald in het verleden?
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Before you go making accusations – read (your own) post #29 and let me know why you think it is in any way a reasonable reply . It’s also a good example of why I don’t bother replying to some posts. Thankfully I’ve got other things going on in real life, and I don’t have the same time to waste coming here and having inane, bitchy arguments with characters I don’t particularly like and have absolutely nothing in common with anyway.quote:
[..]
Je haalt een deel van de post weg uit de quote, negeert andere posts of durft er niet op in te gaan, en hebt het lef om met een "That's all you've got" te komen?
I answered the ‘what about the witnesses’ argument in a reasonable manner.
As for the vids you posted – I don’t have time to watch some NatGeo type docu. And your question was a bit vague anyway.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
I stated facts. A question has a question mark behind it.quote:
There. All your questions answered.
Could you please provide us with answers to the following?
1.) Do you believe nuclear energy exists?
2.) Do you believe nuclear energy does exist, but nuclear weapons don't?
3.) How does the existence of napalm disprove the existence of nuclear energy/weapons?
They're just 3 easy questions for a genius like you, since i just answered all yours, please indulge us in your wisdom.
1. I don’t know, I haven’t had the time to read enough about it yet.
2. No. (I edited part of the question as it was the same as nr.1)
3. It doesn’t.
MAYBE I'll bother replying to the rest of your rubbishy post when I have more time.
Bye lads! Have a lovely evening.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Ik stel voor dat je nog een keer leest wat er staat, maar nu beter lezen.quote:
[..]
Before you go making accusations – read (your own) post #29 and let me know why you think it is in any way a reasonable reply . It’s also a good example of why I don’t bother replying to some posts. Thankfully I’ve got other things going on in real life, and I don’t have the same time to waste coming here and having inane, bitchy arguments with characters I don’t particularly like and have absolutely nothing in common with anyway.
I answered the ‘what about the witnesses’ argument in a reasonable manner.
As for the vids you posted – I don’t have time to watch some NatGeo type docu. And your question was a bit vague anyway.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Again, jouw mening is geen feit.quote:
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Vraag me toch af, als je niet in kernwapens gelooft, waar haalt de zon dan zijn energie vandaan? En waar komen de elementen uit het periodiek systeem dan vandaan?
In Baden-Badener Badeseen kann man Baden-Badener baden sehen.
Grappige is dat Tingo dus blijkbaar gelooft dat kernwapens niet bestaan, daarmee logisch gezien ook radioactiviteit niet, dat sluit elkaar namelijk uit, maar wel meent dat straling gevaarlijk is gezien zijn suggestieve post over microgolf straling in dit topic
BNW / 5G gevaarlijk voor de gezondheid? #2
BNW / 5G gevaarlijk voor de gezondheid? #2
In Baden-Badener Badeseen kann man Baden-Badener baden sehen.
Dat zou ik niet zo zeggen denk ik. Radioactieve materialen kunnen best bestaan zonder kernwapens.quote:
Grappige is dat Tingo dus blijkbaar gelooft dat kernwapens niet bestaan, daarmee logisch gezien ook radioactiviteit niet, dat sluit elkaar namelijk uit, maar wel meent dat straling gevaarlijk is gezien zijn suggestieve post over microgolf straling in dit topic
BNW / 5G gevaarlijk voor de gezondheid? #2
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Ja,ja,ja. Blah,blah,blah.quote:
I already answered a few weeks ago:
I did not claim that my opinion is fact. Neither is yours or anyone else’s for that matter. But we all knew that already.
Please stop repeating yourself and the same cliché, then get to the point - if at all you have one.
I stated facts in the opening post. Feel free to challenge any of them. Be specific please.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Nee dat is het nou juist, je post daar een aantal van jouw persoonlijke meningen, geen feiten. Je spreekt jezelf weer geweldig tegen hier. Andere users hebben die ook al onderuit gehaald, daar mag je eerst verder op in gaan.quote:
[..]
Ja,ja,ja. Blah,blah,blah.
I already answered a few weeks ago:
I did not claim that my opinion is fact. Neither is yours or anyone else’s for that matter. But we all knew that already.
Please stop repeating yourself and the same cliché, then get to the point - if at all you have one.
I stated facts in the opening post. Feel free to challenge any of them. Be specific please.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
In that case you should be able to be more specific.quote:
[..]
Nee dat is het nou juist, je post daar een aantal van jouw persoonlijke meningen, geen feiten.
Which points in the list are not factual?
Please describe why.
I've got a bit of washing up to do, which is more important right now. Fyn avond!
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
quote:
[..]
In that case you should be able to be more specific.
Which points in the list are not factual?
Please describe why.
I've got a bit of washing up to do, which is more important right now. Fyn avond!
Dat is een mening, geen feit.quote:There is no difference between that of the 'atomic' or the 1940's napalm bombings aftermath imagery.
Dat je het remarkable vind is een mening, geen feit.quote:The remarkable similarities between 'atomic' and fire-bomb casualties photos.
Zou kunnen, who cares? Waarom is het relevant?quote:That the word 'atomic' was first used by H.G. Wells in the 1914 SF novel The World Set Free.
Hoe cares? Waarom is dit relevant?quote:That fire-bombs (napalm) were invented as early as 1943.
Bron hiervoor? De B29 was veel meer dan alleen een nuke bomber, en op dat moment al ongeveer een jaar in gebruik tegen Japan. Zelfs als dit waar is, de B29 silverplates waren speciaal aangepast, en geen reguliere B29's. De silverplates waren ook lichter gemaakt, dus de range van de B29 was vast een belangrijke reden. Dit punt is eerder misleidend, en geen feit.quote:That the B29 'nuke' bomber was new, hampered by technical faults and known to be unreliable. Why use it to carry such an important, highly dangerous payload?
Thermal pulse and subsequent fires will do that, yeah.quote:The fact that almost all of the buildings destroyed were made of paper and wood.
Ze maken het zich wel weer erg moeilijk dan, door dit soort verhalen te verzinnen.quote:The miraculous survival adventures, and that none of the 'atomic' bomb survivors were even recognised by their own government until 1957. There were also many reports of there being double (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) survivors and yet only ONE has been recognised by the government and that wasn't until 2009....only months before his death at the ripe old age of 93.
Dat is een mening, geen feit.quote:The vague witness accounts.
Welke dan? Ruikt als meer misleiding.quote:That iconic photos of the event were faked/manipulated/miscaptioned.
Op zijn best een mening, zeker geen feit.quote:That the 'atomic' bomb explosion test footage was 100-tons of TNT allegedly used to imitate and 'test' the effects of an 'atomic' bomb but was very likely used in some of the thousands of crude fear propaganda films.
Zou kunnen, waarom is dat relevant?quote:That thousands of fear propaganda fims were made at Lookout Mountain, a huge military intelligence installation/studio – the biggest and best equipped in Hollywood at the time.
Gelukkig is een grootschalige kernoorlog geen ding geworden nee. Hoe precies is dit "shown not to be true"? Mengsel van mening en misleiding.quote:The hysterical, unproven stories of radiation poisoning, increase in cancer rates, babies with hereditary birth defects due to the effects of an atomic bomb and the huge tracts of land which we were told would be left uninhabitable for centuries after such an event....all of which have been shown NOT to be true.
Dat is een feit jaquote:The alleged 'atomic' bomb was tested for the first time only a few weeks before the 'atomic' bombings allegedly took place.
Waarom is dat een probleem?Zoveel meningen en misleiding in die punten, met hier en daar een feit.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Is al heeeel uitgebreid gedaan vlugge japie, maar daar lees je dan overheen en reageer je niet op.quote:
[..]
I stated facts in the opening post. Feel free to challenge any of them. Be specific please.
Zelden iemand zoveel vragen zien ontwijken, informatie verdraaien voor eigen gewin en dan anderen hiervan betichten. Vervolgens wordt alle wetenschappelijke onderbouwing weggewuifd ten faveure van een of andere youtube filmpje omdat het nep is. En dan gaat diegene anderen lopen vertellen wat er allemaal wel en niet kan wbt nucleaire wapen, ondanks dat die persoon nul verstand heeft van natuurkunde en voor het verschil tussen micro- en millisievert Google moet gebruiken.
[ Bericht 22% gewijzigd door SuperHartje op 22-03-2019 17:53:28 ]
[ Bericht 22% gewijzigd door SuperHartje op 22-03-2019 17:53:28 ]
Eigen schuld, plat hoofd
De iene dea rent veur zien leave, den andere wandelt hiel rustig veurbij.
De iene dea rent veur zien leave, den andere wandelt hiel rustig veurbij.
Vooral mooi als ik op elk van de tig punten uit de OP individueel inga, dit gewoon compleet genegeerd wordt.quote:
Zelden iemand zoveel vragen zien ontwijken, informatie verdraaien voor eigen gewin en dan anderen hiervan betichten. Vervolgens wordt alle wetenschappelijke onderbouwing weggewuifd ten faveure van een of andere youtube filmpje omdat het nep is. En dan gaat diegene anderen lopen vertellen wat er allemaal wel en niet kan wbt nucleaire wapen, ondanks dat die persoon nul verstand heeft van natuurkunde en voor het verschil tussen micro- en millisievert Google moet gebruiken.
[ Bericht 5% gewijzigd door SuperHartje op 22-03-2019 17:54:05 ]
De Renault Tingo, blijft doorgaan, nooit last van het verkeer, hindernissen of lastig terrein.quote:
[..]
Vooral mooi als ik op elk van de tig punten uit de OP individueel inga, dit gewoon compleet genegeerd wordt.
In Baden-Badener Badeseen kann man Baden-Badener baden sehen.
Exact dat viel dus op. Zaken waar inhoudelijke kennis of een wetenschappelijke onderbouwing voor is te geven worden even makkelijk aan de kant geschoven en negeren wij maar even voor het gemak. Pure onkunde en onwetendheid die er vanaf straalt.quote:
[..]
Vooral mooi als ik op elk van de tig punten uit de OP individueel inga, dit gewoon compleet genegeerd wordt.
[ Bericht 40% gewijzigd door SuperHartje op 22-03-2019 17:56:45 ]
Eigen schuld, plat hoofd
De iene dea rent veur zien leave, den andere wandelt hiel rustig veurbij.
De iene dea rent veur zien leave, den andere wandelt hiel rustig veurbij.
Wat een lol Tingo houdt de gemoederen bezig en die gast post niet eens wat.
Als je in discussie gaat met een trol, wint hij. Als je een trol beledigt, wint hij. Als je tekeer gaat tegen een trol, wint hij. Het enige waar trollen niet tegen kunnen, is te worden genegeerd.
Vind je dat een goed teken?quote:
Wat een lol Tingo houdt de gemoederen bezig en die gast post niet eens wat.
Radio actieve straling komt vrij bij kernsplitsing en kernfusiequote:
[..]
Dat zou ik niet zo zeggen denk ik. Radioactieve materialen kunnen best bestaan zonder kernwapens.
Bij kernfusie kan je een kernwapen niet als onmogelijk zijn, hooguit de technische beperkingen van het maken ervan.
Bij kernsplijting net zo, als je eenmaal voldoende radioactief materiaal bij elkaar hebt om een kettingreactie op gang te brengen die amok loopt en deze lang genoeg weet te containen doet het ook noem.
Of je de technologie hebt of niet hebt om het te maken, of de kennis van zaken is niet relevant.
In Baden-Badener Badeseen kann man Baden-Badener baden sehen.
Dat is niet het enige process waarbij ioniserende straling bij vrijkomt. Dat doet een x-ray buis ook, zonder dat daar kernfusie of splitsing bij nodig is. Bepaalde kernreacties doen dat ook, zonder dat het isotoop daadwerkelijk verandert, bijv gamma decay of internal conversion. Kernwapens zouden zonder die kettingreacties ook niet zomaar mogelijk zijn.quote:
[..]
Radio actieve straling komt vrij bij kernsplitsing en kernfusie
Bij kernfusie kan je een kernwapen niet als onmogelijk zijn, hooguit de technische beperkingen van het maken ervan.
Bij kernsplijting net zo, als je eenmaal voldoende radioactief materiaal bij elkaar hebt om een kettingreactie op gang te brengen die amok loopt en deze lang genoeg weet te containen doet het ook noem.
Of je de technologie hebt of niet hebt om het te maken, of de kennis van zaken is niet relevant.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Atoombommen bestaan niet, want materie bestaat niet uit atomen maar uit ruimtescheepjes. Groetjes, Harriechristus.
Ik schrijf boeken over wetenschap en filosofie!
https://www.epsilon-uitga(...)e-tijd-materie/10996
https://www.spectrumboeke(...)k-niet-9789000386765
https://www.spectrumboeke(...)tronen-9789000395071
https://www.epsilon-uitga(...)e-tijd-materie/10996
https://www.spectrumboeke(...)k-niet-9789000386765
https://www.spectrumboeke(...)tronen-9789000395071
Ik dacht elfenstof.quote:
Atoombommen bestaan niet, want materie bestaat niet uit atomen maar uit ruimtescheepjes. Groetjes, Harriechristus.
A child is born with no state of mind.
Ohja!quote:
Atoombommen bestaan niet, want materie bestaat niet uit atomen maar uit ruimtescheepjes. Groetjes, Harriechristus.
Damn, dat is lang geleden zeg.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
There is no difference to be seen in hundreds of photographs after a fire-bombing or after an ‘atomic’ bombing. Look at the photos and point out the differences between the 'atomic' and fire-bomb(napalm) imagery. Please list the 'numerous side-effects'.quote:
[..]
[quote]Oh yes there is, damage from atomic bombs is way more extensive and causes numerous side effects that napalm doesn't.
[..]
No difference then, so the pictures of which are claimed to be ‘atomic’ bomb casualties could also be napalm bomb casualties. It is not 'pretty logical' to believe whatever you get told.quote:They both have the ability to burn people, so that's pretty logical.
[..]
It doesn’t ‘prove’ anything and I didn’t claim it did. I thought it an interesting fact that's all. It might show where the hoaxsters get their silly ideas from…..science fiction. There are other examples of early science fiction being presented as real.quote:How does that prove anything?
[..]quote:Again, totally unrelated. They probably invented a whole lot more shit around that time, so what?
I think it is related. I didn't know, and was a bit surprised to read, that the invention of napalm was so much earlier than the 1960’s. Like many people, I thought napalm was first used on Vietnam.
A lot of people still think that Dresden was bombed by conventional explosives. Napalm/fire-bomb was a new weapon in the 1940's.
[..]
[..]quote:You're speaking about Japan during WW2, of course almost all buildings are just paper and wood. That's very usual for Japan.
No shit Sherlock.I was just stating a fact of which I wasn't aware of up until a few years ago. I thought it might've been of interest for some readers.
It’d be difficult NOT to recognise a victim/survivor/ witness etc. if there was as much evidence/proof as you seem to think there is.quote:Recognition leads to a shitload of claims, and costs a lot of money. This does not mean at all that nuclear weapons don't exist.
[..]
I’m just stating interesting facts which I didn’t know of until quite recently.
Post some witness/survival acccounts which have convinced you of that the history books are true. I wasn’t writing about atomic energy, btw.quote:Just as vague as your list. No reason atomic energy doesn't exist.
[..]
I didn’t say it did. People have their own eyes and brains to decide for themselves. There are photos which are clearly fake (the shadows on the walls and pavements etc.) and some photos have been of other natural disasters such as earthquakes but have been misused in the ‘atomic’ bomb propaganda.quote:Because it looks fake to you, doesn't mean it is fake. Even if it is fake, it still doesn't disprove nuclear weapons.
[..]
It was discussed earlier . I haven't seen any source from you to back up the claims that it was ‘atomic’.quote:Any source to back up that this was in fact not nuclear?
[..]
I didn't write that. I wrote : the biggest and best equipped STUDIO in Hollywood at the time. You should do some reading about it. They most likely used footage of real TNT explosions as templates for the 'atomic' bomb fear propaganda films.quote:Oh, maybe because they wanted to record it, and it was as you say yourself, the biggest and best military intelligence installation?
[..]
Post some examples which you think are true. I didn't say I had 'disproven' anything, I have presented some facts which raise important questions. There is no proof of it ever happening in the first place. It was all propaganda.quote:There are a lot of examples of these cases to indeed happen, why are they not true? E.g. cancer patients, numerous birth defects from people that were near nuclear blasts or nuclear installation meltdowns, etc. How have you disproven this?
[..]
No, and I didn't claim that either. I was stating a fact, not an opinion.quote:So? Does this prove nuclear weapons do not exist?
[..]
Sorry, I can’t really make enough sense of the above sentences to bother replying.quote:A lot of things happen in war that were not necessary. This does not disprove at all that a nuclear weapon does not exist.
[..]
'Same shit' as what exactly?quote:Same shit.
[..]
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Tingo, heb je ook bewijs voor je bovenstaande beweringen?
Het antwoord op de belangrijkste vraag van alle vragen? 42!
De plaat blijft ook wel weer nogal hangen bij de twee nukes op Japan...
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Interesting that an inventor of chroma key (greenscreen/bluescreen/special effects) technology was also so involved in the development of the 'atomic' bomb.....or at least the 'atomic' bomb footage. The whole link about Oak Ridge (spooky military 'closed city') is also very interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key
'1950, Warner Brothers employee and ex-Kodak researcher Arthur Widmer began working on an ultraviolet travelling matte process. He also began developing bluescreen techniques: one of the first films to use them was the 1958 adaptation of the Ernest Hemingway novella, The Old Man and the Sea, starring Spencer Tracy.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Widmer
'Arthur Widmer began his career at Kodak in 1935, as a researcher in Rochester, New York. He learned much, and being seen as a creative thinker was attached on a three-year stint in 1943 as one of the Kodak researchers assigned to the Manhattan Project in Berkeley, California and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as an analytical chemist developing methods of uranium analysis, which led to the development of the atomic bomb.'
'The Academy's Science and Technology committee honored Widmer for helping develop methods for advancing the art of storytelling on film: Most notable: processes that make it seem as if actors are in faraway locations when in fact they are working on sound stages in Hollywood or elsewhere.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Ridge,_Tennessee
Oak Ridge is a city in Anderson and Roane counties in the eastern part of the U.S. state of Tennessee, about 25 miles (40 km) west of Knoxville. Oak Ridge's population was 29,330 at the 2010 census.[5] It is part of the Knoxville Metropolitan Area. Oak Ridge's nicknames include the Atomic City,[6] the Secret City,[7] the Ridge, and the City Behind the Fence.[8]
Oak Ridge was established in 1942 as a production site for the Manhattan Project—the massive American, British, and Canadian operation that developed the atomic bomb. As it is still the site of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Y-12 National Security Complex, scientific development still plays a crucial role in the city's economy and culture in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key
'1950, Warner Brothers employee and ex-Kodak researcher Arthur Widmer began working on an ultraviolet travelling matte process. He also began developing bluescreen techniques: one of the first films to use them was the 1958 adaptation of the Ernest Hemingway novella, The Old Man and the Sea, starring Spencer Tracy.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Widmer
'Arthur Widmer began his career at Kodak in 1935, as a researcher in Rochester, New York. He learned much, and being seen as a creative thinker was attached on a three-year stint in 1943 as one of the Kodak researchers assigned to the Manhattan Project in Berkeley, California and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as an analytical chemist developing methods of uranium analysis, which led to the development of the atomic bomb.'
'The Academy's Science and Technology committee honored Widmer for helping develop methods for advancing the art of storytelling on film: Most notable: processes that make it seem as if actors are in faraway locations when in fact they are working on sound stages in Hollywood or elsewhere.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Ridge,_Tennessee
Oak Ridge is a city in Anderson and Roane counties in the eastern part of the U.S. state of Tennessee, about 25 miles (40 km) west of Knoxville. Oak Ridge's population was 29,330 at the 2010 census.[5] It is part of the Knoxville Metropolitan Area. Oak Ridge's nicknames include the Atomic City,[6] the Secret City,[7] the Ridge, and the City Behind the Fence.[8]
Oak Ridge was established in 1942 as a production site for the Manhattan Project—the massive American, British, and Canadian operation that developed the atomic bomb. As it is still the site of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Y-12 National Security Complex, scientific development still plays a crucial role in the city's economy and culture in general.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Als hij begon met chroma key in 1950 en het voor het eerst werd toegepast in 1958 dan kunnen dus de atoomtest voor die tijd daarmee niet gefaked zijn.
Maar goed, alsof je ooit op argumenten ingaat
Maar goed, alsof je ooit op argumenten ingaat
In Baden-Badener Badeseen kann man Baden-Badener baden sehen.
Interessante docu over de beslissing.
Met veel achtergrond informatie 😎
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
In which case you should be able to back up your opinion and point out the differences.quote:
[..]
[quote][..]
Dat is een mening, geen feit.
[..]
Ok, plain old similarities then. It is a fact that the images are very similar. Point out the differences instead of repeating a cliché.quote:Dat je het remarkable vind is een mening, geen feit.
[..]
I care. It is a fact, relevant or not.quote:Zou kunnen, who cares? Waarom is het relevant?
[..]
I care. Relevant or not, it is a fact.quote:Hoe cares? Waarom is dit relevant?
[..]
Maybe I'll post a bron/more info later. The B29 was designed as a high-altitude bomber but did not succeed as such because of technical (engine) difficulties , so was then used as a low-altitude bomber.quote:Bron hiervoor? De B29 was veel meer dan alleen een nuke bomber, en op dat moment al ongeveer een jaar in gebruik tegen Japan. Zelfs als dit waar is, de B29 silverplates waren speciaal aangepast, en geen reguliere B29's. De silverplates waren ook lichter gemaakt, dus de range van de B29 was vast een belangrijke reden. Dit punt is eerder misleidend, en geen feit.
[..]
Thermal pulse huh. Is dat 'voornamelijk' of 'vooral' thermal pulse? Sounds about as vague as the unsubstantiated claims you have repeated about electro-magnetic pulse.quote:Thermal pulse and subsequent fires will do that, yeah.
[..]
Napalm was enough to do the job, as can be seen in the fire-bomb aftermath imagery.
Partially blinded and deafened, wading through rivers of women and children melted together, then catching a train and getting to work in Nagasaki just in time to witness the second 'atomic' bomb. There are a lot of different versions of the same story. But OK, if you believe that stuff, fine.quote:Ze maken het zich wel weer erg moeilijk dan, door dit soort verhalen te verzinnen.
[..]
FACT: There are several different versions of the same miraculous (ridiculous) witness story.quote:Dat is een mening, geen feit.
[..]
The miscaptioned photos of earthquakes, shadows on the walls and pavements. If you believe them to be real, who cares? Not me.quote:Welke dan? Ruikt als meer misleiding.
[..]
It is a fact that huge TNT explosions were used to imitate/measure the effects of an 'atomic' bomb.quote:Op zijn best een mening, zeker geen feit.
[..]
Tis niet maar 'zou kunnen' - het is 'n feit dat duizenden propaganda films geproduceerd, ge-edit, gemaakt in de LookOut Mountain military intelligence studios waren.That you continue to believe (and quite hilariously try to defend) silly propaganda films from seventy years ago is your problem.quote:Zou kunnen, waarom is dat relevant?
[..]
I didn't mention anything about a 'grootschalige kernoorlog' and I don't know why you have. I was referring to what we have been told about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings. How have the claims (radiation poisoning, increase in cancer rates, babies with hereditary birth defects due to the effects of an atomic bomb and the huge tracts of land which we were told would be left uninhabitable for centuries after such an event) been proved to be true? Please be specific and show us that the claims regarding the aftermath of an atomic bomb are without question, true.quote:Gelukkig is een grootschalige kernoorlog geen ding geworden nee. Hoe precies is dit "shown not to be true"? Mengsel van mening en misleiding.
[..]
I stated it as a fact, not a problem....or an opinion....before you go repeating the same cliché.quote:Dat is een feit ja. Waarom is dat een probleem?
I have posted facts, not opinions and/or misleading points. You have written/presented absolutely NOTHING to back up your belief in the atomic bomb claims. You are merely reiterating what we have been told/taught for over seventy years. You seem to be more interested in arguing about what is fact and/or opinion.quote:Zoveel meningen en misleiding in die punten, met hier en daar een feit.
..........
Anyway, I've taken some of my limited time to respond to your usual shallow bullshit.
I have stated facts on which I have based my opinion. Nowhere have I claimed my opinion to be fact. You are trying to start an argument by repeating a cliché. Laughable.
Oh and btw lads, I honestly don't give flying fuck if people believe the 'atomic' bomb stories or not. I don't believe the 'atomic' propaganda and I don't see why it is important for you (or your cohorts) to try and tell me otherwise. I wouldn't mind so much if any of you presented a valid argument to substantiate the regurgitated claims, instead of the snidy remarks, editing of my posts, trying to put words in my mouth and twisting what I've written. I might respond again in the unlikely event that you (or anyone else) actually posts something of interest, but I'm pretty much done wasting time with this forum.
Napalm or atomic bomb victims?
https://upload.wikimedia.(...)pects-Hiroshima.webm
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
No. As most people should know, it's not at all unusual for the military to be developing and using certain technology years before it ever comes into commercial/civilian use.quote:
Als hij begon met chroma key in 1950 en het voor het eerst werd toegepast in 1958 dan kunnen dus de atoomtest voor die tijd daarmee niet gefaked zijn.
Maar goed, alsof je ooit op argumenten ingaat
As for me 'ooit op argumenten ingaat'....I'm not looking for an argument - but you and your cohorts are. I haven't seen anything from you 'nukists' to change my opinion.
In case you didn't read the information properly... Arthur A.Widmer began his career at Kodak in 1935 and then worked at the spooky Oak Ridge military installation/town for three years (1943-1946)
Kodak and Mr.Widmer have a patent from 1944, which would've been when Widmer was working at the spooky Oak Ridge military town.
Photographic filter and antihalation layers
https://patents.google.com/patent/US2405106A/en
I've no reason to doubt that Mr.Widner was quite brilliant in his field of photographic special effects. The ground-breaking imagery that he helped to create so many years ago is still fooling people to this very day....but there are more reasons behind that than the technology alone.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Ah, natuurlijk, het leger heeft de technologie al jaren voor deze ontwikkeld is, en dat zonder enig bewijs, Maar deze almachtige militair industrie is niet in staat kernwapens te maken. Dat is een leugen
En dan gewoon even een patent erbij halen waarvan je duidelijk geen idee hebt waar dat patent over gaat.
En dan gewoon even een patent erbij halen waarvan je duidelijk geen idee hebt waar dat patent over gaat.
In Baden-Badener Badeseen kann man Baden-Badener baden sehen.
Kodak? Als in Kodak camera?quote:
[..]
No. As most people should know, it's not at all unusual for the military to be developing and using certain technology years before it ever comes into commercial/civilian use.
As for me 'ooit op argumenten ingaat'....I'm not looking for an argument - but you and your cohorts are. I haven't seen anything from you 'nukists' to change my opinion.
In case you didn't read the information properly... Arthur A.Widmer began his career at Kodak in 1935 and then worked at the spooky Oak Ridge military installation/town for three years (1943-1946)
Kodak and Mr.Widmer have a patent from 1944, which would've been when Widmer was working at the spooky Oak Ridge military town.
Photographic filter and antihalation layers
https://patents.google.com/patent/US2405106A/en
I've no reason to doubt that Mr.Widner was quite brilliant in his field of photographic special effects. The ground-breaking imagery that he helped to create so many years ago is still fooling people to this very day....but there are more reasons behind that than the technology alone.
Ah dat verklaard de enorme flits bij een nucleaire explosie...
Moet wel enorme camera zijn geweest dan.
De power output moet enorm zijn geweest, natuurlijk aangestuurd door middel van een kernreactor, verklaard ook in een keer de fallout en zo..
Damn Tingo.. op een of andere manier begin ik deze logica te snappen.
Er staat nog een vraag voor u open!!
Zoals nukes, toevallig?quote:
[..]
No. As most people should know, it's not at all unusual for the military to be developing and using certain technology years before it ever comes into commercial/civilian use.
Alleen jij kan dit soort onzin uit je toetsenbord krijgen zonder dat je daadwerkelijk begrijpt wat je zegt.
Conscience do cost.
It seems I was wrong in complimenting Mr.Widmer so much.There was a lot of film fakery going on even in WWI and as we all should know by now – Hollywood and the military have been close friends for over a hundred years.
But anyway, maybe the military required certain expertise to help make those ridiculous 'atomic' bomb propaganda films and couldn't find many people who were skilled and crooked enough to take part in the scam. Maybe Arthur Widmer was one of the people who took the job....working at the spooky Oak Ridge military town from 1943-1946.
Anyway – for the readers who are genuinely interested....
https://shootsystems.com/the-history-of-green-screen/
The dawn of the blue screen
'The history of green screen began in earnest with the invention of chroma key technology in the 1930s. Larry Butler, who used the “blue screen travelling matte” technique to impressive effect in 1940’s The Thief of Bagdad, realised that using a single colour as a backdrop for filming could help filmmakers isolate the actors from the background and make special effects easier to create. The colour he selected for this process was blue, because it was sufficiently different from the actors’ skin colours, so foreground and background could be separated more easily.'
Hollywood's History of Faking It | The Evolution of Greenscreen Compositing
http://theconversation.co(...)n-screen-green-92989
'Green screens were originally blue when chroma keying was first used in 1940 by Larry Butler on The Thief of Baghdad – which won him the Academy Award for special effects. Since then, green has become more common.'
------
We learn something every day - or at least most of us do.
But anyway, maybe the military required certain expertise to help make those ridiculous 'atomic' bomb propaganda films and couldn't find many people who were skilled and crooked enough to take part in the scam. Maybe Arthur Widmer was one of the people who took the job....working at the spooky Oak Ridge military town from 1943-1946.
Anyway – for the readers who are genuinely interested....
https://shootsystems.com/the-history-of-green-screen/
The dawn of the blue screen
'The history of green screen began in earnest with the invention of chroma key technology in the 1930s. Larry Butler, who used the “blue screen travelling matte” technique to impressive effect in 1940’s The Thief of Bagdad, realised that using a single colour as a backdrop for filming could help filmmakers isolate the actors from the background and make special effects easier to create. The colour he selected for this process was blue, because it was sufficiently different from the actors’ skin colours, so foreground and background could be separated more easily.'
Hollywood's History of Faking It | The Evolution of Greenscreen Compositing
http://theconversation.co(...)n-screen-green-92989
'Green screens were originally blue when chroma keying was first used in 1940 by Larry Butler on The Thief of Baghdad – which won him the Academy Award for special effects. Since then, green has become more common.'
------
We learn something every day - or at least most of us do.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Als kernwapens niet bestaan (hebben) of tot explosie zijn gebracht, waarom is het dan onmogelijk stralingsvrij staal te produceren?
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stralingsvrij_staal
En waarom is het dan nodig c14 datering te kalibreren op 1950?
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present
Maar post gerust nog wat gekeuvel over special effects in de filmindustrie, ga vooral nergens op in.
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stralingsvrij_staal
En waarom is het dan nodig c14 datering te kalibreren op 1950?
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present
Maar post gerust nog wat gekeuvel over special effects in de filmindustrie, ga vooral nergens op in.
In Baden-Badener Badeseen kann man Baden-Badener baden sehen.
The 'low background steel' you mention can better be explained by technical advances in steel production of the time rather than the effects of 'atomic' or any other sort of bombs.quote:
Als kernwapens niet bestaan (hebben) of tot explosie zijn gebracht, waarom is het dan onmogelijk stralingsvrij staal te produceren?
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stralingsvrij_staal
En waarom is het dan nodig c14 datering te kalibreren op 1950?
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present
Maar post gerust nog wat gekeuvel over special effects in de filmindustrie, ga vooral nergens op in.
I've read the links you posted and both come across as leaning toward scientistic nukist jargon/mumbo jumbo, but anyway, thanks for mentioning it.
Here's some basic information which may be of interest :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steel_industry_(1850%E2%80%931970)
Bethlehem Steel
'After 1945 Bethlehem doubled its steel capacity, a measure of the widespread optimism in the industry. However the company ignored the new technologies then being developed in Europe and Japan. '
'The Bethlehem Steel workers have not been awarded this compensation because the radiation dose involved in processing fresh uranium fuel is low, and produces a small risk relative to the baseline risk'
The steel industry in the U.S. prospered during and after World War II, while the steel industries in Germany and Japan lay devastated by Allied bombardment.
Japan:
'MITI located steel mills and organized a domestic market; it sponsored Yawata Steel Company. Japanese engineers and entrepreneurs internally developed the necessary technological and organizational capabilities, planned the transfer and adoption of technology, and gauged demand and sources of raw materials and finances.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/(...)l_Trade_and_Industry
'MITI was created with the split of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in May 1949 and given the mission for coordinating international trade policy with other groups, such as the Bank of Japan, the Economic planning Agency, and the various commerce-related cabinet ministries. At the time it was created, Japan was still recovering from the economic disaster of World War II.'
'These policies to promote domestic industry and to protect it from international competition were strongest in the 1950s and 1960s.'
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Heerlijk hoe je geheel niet ingaat op de vraag, en over iets volledig anders een hoop gelul neerzet.quote:
[..]
The 'low background steel' you mention can better be explained by technical advances in steel production of the time rather than the effects of 'atomic' or any other sort of bombs.
I've read the links you posted and both come across as leaning toward scientistic nukist jargon/mumbo jumbo, but anyway, thanks for mentioning it.
Here's some basic information which may be of interest :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steel_industry_(1850%E2%80%931970)
Bethlehem Steel
'After 1945 Bethlehem doubled its steel capacity, a measure of the widespread optimism in the industry. However the company ignored the new technologies then being developed in Europe and Japan. '
'The Bethlehem Steel workers have not been awarded this compensation because the radiation dose involved in processing fresh uranium fuel is low, and produces a small risk relative to the baseline risk'
The steel industry in the U.S. prospered during and after World War II, while the steel industries in Germany and Japan lay devastated by Allied bombardment.
Japan:
'MITI located steel mills and organized a domestic market; it sponsored Yawata Steel Company. Japanese engineers and entrepreneurs internally developed the necessary technological and organizational capabilities, planned the transfer and adoption of technology, and gauged demand and sources of raw materials and finances.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/(...)l_Trade_and_Industry
'MITI was created with the split of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in May 1949 and given the mission for coordinating international trade policy with other groups, such as the Bank of Japan, the Economic planning Agency, and the various commerce-related cabinet ministries. At the time it was created, Japan was still recovering from the economic disaster of World War II.'
'These policies to promote domestic industry and to protect it from international competition were strongest in the 1950s and 1960s.'
In Baden-Badener Badeseen kann man Baden-Badener baden sehen.
Betere productie technieken maakt modern staal lichtelijk radioactief?quote:
[..]
The 'low background steel' you mention can better be explained by technical advances in steel production of the time rather than the effects of 'atomic' or any other sort of bombs.
How the hell does that make any sense?
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Jij hebt over staal productie begonnen. Is 't onmogelijk om stralingsvrij staal te produceren?quote:
Als kernwapens niet bestaan (hebben) of tot explosie zijn gebracht, waarom is het dan onmogelijk stralingsvrij staal te produceren?
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stralingsvrij_staal
En waarom is het dan nodig c14 datering te kalibreren op 1950?
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present
Maar post gerust nog wat gekeuvel over special effects in de filmindustrie, ga vooral nergens op in.
The 'low background steel' you refer to can better be explained by technical advances in steel production of the time (late 1940's) and/or background radiation rather than the effects of 'atomic' bombs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/(...)radioactive_material
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
As for the link about carbon dating...the man who invented it, Willard Libby, was a pro-nukist and also involved in the Manhattan Project.
Carbon dating is nowhere near as reliable as what people are led to believe, so why would the scientists be so sure that the measurements were so accurate?
Heel veel uitgebrede informatie over staal, maar dan helemaal niks over 'low background steel' te vinden.....
https://www.britannica.com/technology/steel
The above article is originally from 1999 and has been edited several times over the years, yet the term 'low background steel' is nowhere to be found.
There seems to be a lot of discussion about 'low background steel' on different forums over the last ten years or so, but it all seems a bit vague....and all seems to be discussing the exact same text/article.
Who discovered 'low background steel' ?
How was it discovered?
When was the term 'low background steel' first used and by whom?
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Hoe dan?quote:
[..]
Jij hebt over staal productie begonnen. Is 't onmogelijk om stralingsvrij staal te produceren?
The 'low background steel' you refer to can better be explained by technical advances in steel production of the time (late 1940's) and/or background radiation rather than the effects of 'atomic' bombs.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Maybe you should try posting some interesting information to back up your opinons instead of asking vague, shilly questions. Please be specific!quote:
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Ja misschien moet je dat eens doen ja... Hoe kunnen moderne staal productiemethoden verklaren dat het nu licht radioactief is?quote:
[..]
Maybe you should try posting some interesting information to back up your opinons instead of asking vague, shilly questions. Please be specific!
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
You didn't read my post properly.quote:
[..]
Ja misschien moet je dat eens doen ja... Hoe kunnen moderne staal productiemethoden verklaren dat het nu licht radioactief is?
Who discovered 'low background steel' ?
How was it discovered?
When was the term 'low background steel' first used and by whom?
I looked it up and haven't been able to find very much detailed info about it, maybe you with your scientistic shilliness can do better. Please enlighten us!
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Tingo op 16-05-2019 22:43:23 (Adde word :info) ]
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Prima als je je claim niet hard kan maken, maar maak dan ook niet van die domme claims.quote:
[..]
You didn't read my post properly.
Who discovered 'low background steel' ?
How was it discovered?
When was the term 'low background steel' first used and by whom?
I looked it up and haven't been able to find very much detailed about it, maybe you with your scientistic shilliness can do better. Please enlighten us!
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
I asked a few very straightforward questions that I have been unable to find the answers to.quote:
[..]
Prima als je je claim niet hard kan maken, maar maak dan ook niet van die domme claims.
Maybe with your scientistic know-it-all wisdom has a better source.
Who discovered 'low background steel' ?
How was it discovered?
When was the term 'low background steel' first used and by whom?
Maybe your cohort Piet de Verdrietig knows better.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Waarom is dat relevant?quote:
[..]
I asked a few very straightforward questions that I have been unable to find the answers to.
Maybe with your scientistic know-it-all wisdom has a better source.
Who discovered 'low background steel' ?
How was it discovered?
When was the term 'low background steel' first used and by whom?
Maybe your cohort Piet de Verdrietig knows better.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
For the genuinely interested:
The (pre-atomic) 'low background steel' subject seems to have just appeared on the internet around 10 years ago.
There's a lot of discussion been going on which is mostly based on the same vague claim/article, but there seems to be no information available about when, how or by whom it was discovered. I'm sure we would've heard from the nukist camp by now if the information actually existed, but we haven't, so until the info is provided, we can assume that the 'low background steel' issue is just another piece of bullshit in the whole silly 'atomic' bomb scientistic nonsense story.
The 'low background steel' can better be attributed to steel production techniques/industry/recycling etc. Maybe the so-called 'low background steel' does not exist at all and is just another chapter that has been made up by the hoaxsters to support the enormous, hideous lie.
The stories about pre- 'atomic' ships being salvaged for 'low background' steel has got nothing to do with it – it is puely and simply about money.
Here's some more information about steel production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_oxygen_steelmaking
'The process was developed in 1948 by Swiss engineer Robert Durrer and commercialized in 1952–1953 by the Austrian steelmaking company VOEST and ÖAMG. The LD converter, named after the Austrian towns Linz and Donawitz (a district of Leoben) is a refined version of the Bessemer converter where blowing of air is replaced with blowing oxygen. It reduced capital cost of the plants, time of smelting, and increased labor productivity. Between 1920 and 2000, labor requirements in the industry decreased by a factor of 1,000, from more than three man-hours per metric ton to just 0.003.[3] The majority of steel manufactured in the world is produced using the basic oxygen furnace. In 2000, it accounted for 60% of global steel output.'
'In 1943, Durrer, formerly a professor at the Berlin Institute of Technology, returned to Switzerland and accepted a seat on the board of Roll AG, the country's largest steel mill. In 1947 he purchased the first small 2.5-ton experimental converter from the US, and on April 3, 1948 the new converter produced its first steel.[5] The new process could conveniently process large amounts of scrap metal with only a small proportion of primary metal necessary.[6] In the summer of 1948 Roll AG and two Austrian state-owned companies, VOEST and ÖAMG, agreed to commercialize the Durrer process.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voestalpine
Post war, development of Linz-Donawitz process (1948-1990)
In the summer of 1948 VÖEST, ÖAMG and Swiss Roll AG agreed to co-develop the basic oxygen steelmaking process proposed by Robert Durrer (itself a development of Henry Bessemer's 1858 patent).[35] By June 1949 VÖEST developed an adaptation of Durrer's process, the LD (Linz-Donawitz) process,[34][36] (German: LD Verfahren; U.S. names: Oxygen Converter Process, Basic Oxygen Furnace Process, BOP, OSM).[37] In December 1949 the VÖEST and the ÖAMG committed to building their first 30-ton oxygen converters.[36] They were put into operation in November 1952 and May 1953[36] and temporarily created a surge in steel-related research.[38] Thirty-four thousand businesspeople and engineers visited the VÖEST converter by 1963.[38] The LD process reduced processing time and capital costs per ton of steel, contributing to the competitive advantage of Austrian steel.[34] However, errors made by the VÖEST and the ÖAMG management in licensing their technology made control over its adoption elsewhere impossible and by the end of the 1950s the Austrians lost their competitive edge.[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace
While EAFs were widely used in World War II for production of alloy steels, it was only later that electric steelmaking began to expand. The low capital cost for a mini-mill—around US$140–200 per ton of annual installed capacity, compared with US$1,000 per ton of annual installed capacity for an integrated steel mill—allowed mills to be quickly established in war-ravaged Europe, and also allowed them to successfully compete with the big United States steelmakers, such as Bethlehem Steel and U.S. Steel, for low-cost, carbon steel "long products" (structural steel, rod and bar, wire, and fasteners) in the U.S. market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steelmaking
The (pre-atomic) 'low background steel' subject seems to have just appeared on the internet around 10 years ago.
There's a lot of discussion been going on which is mostly based on the same vague claim/article, but there seems to be no information available about when, how or by whom it was discovered. I'm sure we would've heard from the nukist camp by now if the information actually existed, but we haven't, so until the info is provided, we can assume that the 'low background steel' issue is just another piece of bullshit in the whole silly 'atomic' bomb scientistic nonsense story.
The 'low background steel' can better be attributed to steel production techniques/industry/recycling etc. Maybe the so-called 'low background steel' does not exist at all and is just another chapter that has been made up by the hoaxsters to support the enormous, hideous lie.
The stories about pre- 'atomic' ships being salvaged for 'low background' steel has got nothing to do with it – it is puely and simply about money.
Here's some more information about steel production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_oxygen_steelmaking
'The process was developed in 1948 by Swiss engineer Robert Durrer and commercialized in 1952–1953 by the Austrian steelmaking company VOEST and ÖAMG. The LD converter, named after the Austrian towns Linz and Donawitz (a district of Leoben) is a refined version of the Bessemer converter where blowing of air is replaced with blowing oxygen. It reduced capital cost of the plants, time of smelting, and increased labor productivity. Between 1920 and 2000, labor requirements in the industry decreased by a factor of 1,000, from more than three man-hours per metric ton to just 0.003.[3] The majority of steel manufactured in the world is produced using the basic oxygen furnace. In 2000, it accounted for 60% of global steel output.'
'In 1943, Durrer, formerly a professor at the Berlin Institute of Technology, returned to Switzerland and accepted a seat on the board of Roll AG, the country's largest steel mill. In 1947 he purchased the first small 2.5-ton experimental converter from the US, and on April 3, 1948 the new converter produced its first steel.[5] The new process could conveniently process large amounts of scrap metal with only a small proportion of primary metal necessary.[6] In the summer of 1948 Roll AG and two Austrian state-owned companies, VOEST and ÖAMG, agreed to commercialize the Durrer process.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voestalpine
Post war, development of Linz-Donawitz process (1948-1990)
In the summer of 1948 VÖEST, ÖAMG and Swiss Roll AG agreed to co-develop the basic oxygen steelmaking process proposed by Robert Durrer (itself a development of Henry Bessemer's 1858 patent).[35] By June 1949 VÖEST developed an adaptation of Durrer's process, the LD (Linz-Donawitz) process,[34][36] (German: LD Verfahren; U.S. names: Oxygen Converter Process, Basic Oxygen Furnace Process, BOP, OSM).[37] In December 1949 the VÖEST and the ÖAMG committed to building their first 30-ton oxygen converters.[36] They were put into operation in November 1952 and May 1953[36] and temporarily created a surge in steel-related research.[38] Thirty-four thousand businesspeople and engineers visited the VÖEST converter by 1963.[38] The LD process reduced processing time and capital costs per ton of steel, contributing to the competitive advantage of Austrian steel.[34] However, errors made by the VÖEST and the ÖAMG management in licensing their technology made control over its adoption elsewhere impossible and by the end of the 1950s the Austrians lost their competitive edge.[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace
While EAFs were widely used in World War II for production of alloy steels, it was only later that electric steelmaking began to expand. The low capital cost for a mini-mill—around US$140–200 per ton of annual installed capacity, compared with US$1,000 per ton of annual installed capacity for an integrated steel mill—allowed mills to be quickly established in war-ravaged Europe, and also allowed them to successfully compete with the big United States steelmakers, such as Bethlehem Steel and U.S. Steel, for low-cost, carbon steel "long products" (structural steel, rod and bar, wire, and fasteners) in the U.S. market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steelmaking
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
Why do some people not credit the origin of the quotes they use under their posts?- Tingo
