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
