De atoombom #5 Reasons to believe it (or not !)

quote:

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?

quote:

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:



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:

quote:

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?

quote:

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?

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.

quote:

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.

Behalve als die witnesses iets zeggen dat in het straatje past natuurlijk. Dan is het opeens nieuw en interessant.

quote:

Op maandag 4 maart 2019 23:13 schreef ems. het volgende:
Behalve als die witnesses iets zeggen dat in het straatje past natuurlijk. Dan is het opeens nieuw en interessant.

Vergeet YouTube reacties niet. Goeie graadmeter.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

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

quote:

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?

quote:

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?

quote:

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

quote:

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 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.

Ontopic: Weet iemand wanneer deze theorie zijn piek heeft gehaald in het verleden?

quote:

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.