abonnementen ibood.com bol.com Coolblue
pi_185227986
registreer om deze reclame te verbergen
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.
The remarkable similarities between 'atomic' and fire-bomb casualties photos.
That the word 'atomic' was first used by H.G. Wells in the 1914 SF novel The World Set Free.
That fire-bombs (napalm) were invented as early as 1943.
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?
The fact that 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 93.
The vague witness accounts.
That iconic photos of the event were faked/manipulated/miscaptioned.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.

If the official 'atomic' bomb stories were true – the lies/manipulation/propaganda would not be necessary.

Tramcars were running only a few days after the 'atomic' attacks.
..................................................................

In verschillende topics, word er naar voren geschoven dat Atoom wapens onzin zijn.

Verdere info is eigenlijk niet nodig!

Mooie docu over nukes!


VsCNlhT.gif

Schaalmodelhuisje wordt weggevaagd:
2w6t27a.gif

Fearmongering:


[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door SuperHartje op 05-03-2019 13:20:10 ]
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
  maandag 25 februari 2019 @ 08:41:46 #2
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185229001
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 25 februari 2019 04:31 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

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.
Ik zie dat een inhoudelijke reactie weer teveel gevraagt was. Misschien moet je het nog eens proberen.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
pi_185230309
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 25 februari 2019 04:32 schreef Tingo het volgende:
We’ve all been victims of propaganda and indoctrination for one reason or another at some point in our lives.
Dat klopt, daarom kijk ik ook geen reclame :P Maar hoe dat jij stelling onderbouwt is me volslagen onduidelijk. Zo kun je de platte aarde ook rechtvaardigen.
  maandag 25 februari 2019 @ 11:42:48 #4
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185232418
registreer om deze reclame te verbergen
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 25 februari 2019 04:31 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

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.
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 mij ;)
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
pi_185243820
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 25 februari 2019 04:33 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

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'.
Zo werkt bewijslast niet. :') Tuurlijk beschik ik zelf niet over de kennis om de wetenschappelijke theorieŽn 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. _O-

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.
  dinsdag 26 februari 2019 @ 08:15:04 #6
279682 theguyver
Sidekick van A tuin-hek!
pi_185248427
Weer mooi de vraag van hekje ontweken, waarom had ik niet anders verwacht?
Pope John Paul II shot first!!!
  dinsdag 26 februari 2019 @ 11:12:42 #7
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185250995
registreer om deze reclame te verbergen
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 25 februari 2019 21:49 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]

Zo werkt bewijslast niet. :') Tuurlijk beschik ik zelf niet over de kennis om de wetenschappelijke theorieŽn 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. _O-

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.
Zijn lijst bezwaren gaan ook vrijwel alleen over de twee bommen op Japan. Alsof alles sindsdien niet relevant is of zo.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
  Moderator donderdag 28 februari 2019 @ 07:17:09 #8
454430 crew  SuperHartje
Muziek is een taal...
pi_185291429
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 02:52 schreef illusions het volgende:

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.
pi_185295791
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?
pi_185299011
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.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
  donderdag 28 februari 2019 @ 16:14:53 #11
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185299586
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 15:43 schreef Tingo het volgende:
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.
Heb je nog wat zinnigs te melden over mijn post over de natuurkunde achter kernwapens?
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
pi_185299773
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 15:43 schreef Tingo het volgende:
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 was genoeg, maar ze hebben dus kennelijk iets zwaarders gebruikt zeg je? Atoombommen toevallig? :D
  donderdag 28 februari 2019 @ 17:10:29 #13
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185300540
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 16:25 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]

Napalm was genoeg, maar ze hebben dus kennelijk iets zwaarders gebruikt zeg je? Atoombommen toevallig? :D
Een miljoen soldaten die met fakkels de stad in lopen was ook genoeg geweest, dus eigenlijk bestaat napalm ook niet?
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
pi_185300750
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 17:10 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Een miljoen soldaten die met fakkels de stad in lopen was ook genoeg geweest, dus eigenlijk bestaat napalm ook niet?
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. :D
  donderdag 28 februari 2019 @ 17:27:35 #15
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185300865
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 17:21 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]

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. :D
Dat ook ja :) 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
pi_185303502
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 17:27 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Dat ook ja :) 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.
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."

Ik kan nog steeds niet echt geloven dat mensen dit echt ontkennen. :P

Zal leuk zijn op van die kringverjaardagen. _O-
pi_185307228
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 16:25 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]

Napalm was genoeg, maar ze hebben dus kennelijk iets zwaarders gebruikt zeg je? Atoombommen toevallig? :D
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.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
pi_185307367
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 17:21 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]

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. :D
Dat heb ik helemaal niet geimpliceert.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
pi_185307468
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 21:29 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

No.
I wrote : 'Napalm bombs were MORE THAN ENOUGH'.
Was jij maar Generaal van de strijdkrachten in die tijd. Met dit diepe militaire inzicht had de hele wereldoorlog voorkomen kunnen worden!
Just a humble motherfucker with a big dick.
pi_185307573
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 16:13 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Jouw mening is geen feit.
I didn't claim it was. 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.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
pi_185308684
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 16:14 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Heb je nog wat zinnigs te melden over mijn post over de natuurkunde achter kernwapens?
I already posted a 'zinnig' reply to your 'natuurkundige' post.
Here it is again in case you missed it:

quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 25 februari 2019 04:31 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

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
pi_185309941
Ja, heel zinnig. :D 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? :D
pi_185310112
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 21:29 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

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.
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. :*

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)
  donderdag 28 februari 2019 @ 23:12:50 #24
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185310214
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 22:07 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

I already posted a 'zinnig' reply to your 'natuurkundige' post.
Here it is again in case you missed it:

[..]

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.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
  donderdag 28 februari 2019 @ 23:16:06 #25
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185310317
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 21:35 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

I didn't claim it was.
Yeah you did. Jij stelde zelf dat je een lijst met facts had gepost.

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.
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.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
  donderdag 28 februari 2019 @ 23:18:42 #26
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185310393
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 21:29 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

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.
En waarom is dat een argument dat kernwapens niet bestaan?
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
pi_185325987
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 23:12 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

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.
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.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
pi_185326349
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 februari 2019 23:18 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

En waarom is dat een argument dat kernwapens niet bestaan?
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.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
  zaterdag 2 maart 2019 @ 01:25:22 #29
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185334455
quote:
0s.gif Op vrijdag 1 maart 2019 19:17 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

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.
Hier is maar 1 reactie op mogelijk:

:|W

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
  zaterdag 2 maart 2019 @ 01:27:15 #30
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185334473
quote:
0s.gif Op vrijdag 1 maart 2019 19:42 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

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.
Maar hoe is het dan een argument tegen het bestaan van kernwapens?
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
pi_185343137
quote:
0s.gif Op vrijdag 1 maart 2019 19:17 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

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.
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? :') _O-

What's next, are you gonna disprove the Pythagoras theorem with psychology? :D

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.
pi_185395177
quote:
0s.gif Op zaterdag 2 maart 2019 01:25 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
[..]

Hier is maar 1 reactie op mogelijk:

:|W

Ik weet wel een hele simpele praktische reden ja: ooggetuigen. Zitten die allemaal in het complot?

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.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
pi_185395237
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 4 maart 2019 23:10 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]

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.
That's not all. There's an incredibly large portion of arguments which you refuse to get into - anything scientific, for example. :') Pretty weird, seeing you're trying to disprove a scientific theory. :D
pi_185395240
Behalve als die witnesses iets zeggen dat in het straatje past natuurlijk. 8-) Dan is het opeens nieuw en interessant.
Just a humble motherfucker with a big dick.
pi_185395258
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 4 maart 2019 23:13 schreef ems. het volgende:
Behalve als die witnesses iets zeggen dat in het straatje past natuurlijk. 8-) Dan is het opeens nieuw en interessant.
Vergeet YouTube reacties niet. Goeie graadmeter.
pi_185395421
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 4 maart 2019 23:13 schreef illusions het volgende:
[..]

That's not all. There's an incredibly large portion of arguments which you refuse to get into - anything scientific, for example. :') Pretty weird, seeing you're trying to disprove a scientific theory. :D
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! Professor illusions.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
pi_185395445
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 4 maart 2019 23:20 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]

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!
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. :P
pi_185395497
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 4 maart 2019 23:22 schreef illusions het volgende:
[..]

You still can't disprove a scientific theory using psychology, which proves your psychology is also sub-par. ;)
I've listed practical reasons - not psychology.....or scientistic theory.
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
pi_185395522
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 4 maart 2019 23:24 schreef Tingo het volgende:
I've listed practical reasons - not psychology.....or scientistic theory.

I don't need to, the scientific evidence speaks for itself. ;)

Practical reasons, lol. It looks fake, so it must be. :P
pi_185395530
Do you believe nuclear energy is fake, or only nuclear weapons?
pi_185395574
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 4 maart 2019 23:22 schreef illusions het volgende:
[..]

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. :P
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.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
pi_185395626
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 4 maart 2019 23:28 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]

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.
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.

Do you believe nuclear energy is fake, or only nuclear weapons?

Can you answer that one question please?
  maandag 4 maart 2019 @ 23:30:12 #43
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185395628
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 4 maart 2019 23:10 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]

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.
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? :D
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
  maandag 4 maart 2019 @ 23:31:18 #44
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185395658
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 4 maart 2019 23:24 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]

I've listed practical reasons - not psychology.....or scientistic theory.
Please feel free to challenge the points in the list I posted.
Hoe is het bestaan van napalm een reden om te geloven dat nukes niet (kunnen) bestaan?
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
pi_185396308
quote:
1s.gif 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.
Oh yes there is, damage from atomic bombs is way more extensive and causes numerous side effects that napalm doesn't.

quote:
The remarkable similarities between 'atomic' and fire-bomb casualties photos.
They both have the ability to burn people, so that's pretty logical.

quote:
That the word 'atomic' was first used by H.G. Wells in the 1914 SF novel The World Set Free.
How does that prove anything?

quote:
That fire-bombs (napalm) were invented as early as 1943.
Again, totally unrelated. They probably invented a whole lot more shit around that time, so what?

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?
Because it was the best option at the time considering all the parameters.

quote:
The fact that almost all of the buildings destroyed were made of paper and wood.
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 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.
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 vague witness accounts.
Just as vague as your list. No reason atomic energy doesn't exist.

quote:
That iconic photos of the event were faked/manipulated/miscaptioned.
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 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.
Any source to back up that this was in fact not nuclear?

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.
Oh, maybe because they wanted to record it, and it was as you say yourself, the biggest and best military intelligence installation? :D

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.
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 alleged 'atomic' bomb was tested for the first time only a few weeks before the 'atomic' bombings allegedly took place.
So? Does this prove nuclear weapons do 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.
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:
If the official 'atomic' bomb stories were true – the lies/manipulation/propaganda would not be necessary.
Same shit.

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. :*
pi_185430592
Kan me niet aan de indruk onttrekken dat veel mensen die in dit soort absurde theorieŽn 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.
  woensdag 6 maart 2019 @ 15:13:23 #47
258333 Vis1980
Veni Vidi Vissie
pi_185431048
quote:
0s.gif Op woensdag 6 maart 2019 14:49 schreef Defcon55 het volgende:
Kan me niet aan de indruk onttrekken dat veel mensen die in dit soort absurde theorieŽn 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.

Ontopic: Weet iemand wanneer deze theorie zijn piek heeft gehaald in het verleden?
"Evil Alien Conquerers....They Rule!"
  woensdag 6 maart 2019 @ 15:52:56 #48
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_185431846
quote:
0s.gif Op woensdag 6 maart 2019 15:13 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:
[..]

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?
Kan nooit een hoge piek zijn geweest.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
pi_185433382
quote:
0s.gif Op maandag 4 maart 2019 23:30 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
[..]

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? :D
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.
In the new 'reality' we will be living in,nothing will be real and everything will be true-David A.McGowan
pi_185433453
quote:
0s.gif Op dinsdag 5 maart 2019 00:02 schreef illusions het volgende:

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. :*
I stated facts. A question has a question mark behind it.

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
abonnementen ibood.com bol.com Coolblue
Forum Opties
Forumhop:
Hop naar:
(afkorting, bv 'KLB')