In which case you should be able to back up your opinion and point out the differences.quote:Op maandag 18 maart 2019 23:57 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
[..]
[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.
[..]
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.
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:Op maandag 22 april 2019 15:55 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
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
Kodak? Als in Kodak camera?quote:Op woensdag 24 april 2019 20:18 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
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.
Zoals nukes, toevallig?quote:Op woensdag 24 april 2019 20:18 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
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.
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:Op zondag 28 april 2019 10:48 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
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.
Heerlijk hoe je geheel niet ingaat op de vraag, en over iets volledig anders een hoop gelul neerzet.quote:Op vrijdag 10 mei 2019 17:45 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
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.'
Betere productie technieken maakt modern staal lichtelijk radioactief?quote:Op vrijdag 10 mei 2019 17:45 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
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.
Jij hebt over staal productie begonnen. Is 't onmogelijk om stralingsvrij staal te produceren?quote:Op zondag 28 april 2019 10:48 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
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.
Hoe dan?quote:Op woensdag 15 mei 2019 20:43 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
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.
Maybe you should try posting some interesting information to back up your opinons instead of asking vague, shilly questions. Please be specific!quote:
Ja misschien moet je dat eens doen ja... Hoe kunnen moderne staal productiemethoden verklaren dat het nu licht radioactief is?quote:Op donderdag 16 mei 2019 22:26 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
Maybe you should try posting some interesting information to back up your opinons instead of asking vague, shilly questions. Please be specific!
You didn't read my post properly.quote:Op donderdag 16 mei 2019 22:30 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
[..]
Ja misschien moet je dat eens doen ja... Hoe kunnen moderne staal productiemethoden verklaren dat het nu licht radioactief is?
Prima als je je claim niet hard kan maken, maar maak dan ook niet van die domme claims.quote:Op donderdag 16 mei 2019 22:39 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
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!
I asked a few very straightforward questions that I have been unable to find the answers to.quote:Op donderdag 16 mei 2019 22:43 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
[..]
Prima als je je claim niet hard kan maken, maar maak dan ook niet van die domme claims.
Waarom is dat relevant?quote:Op donderdag 16 mei 2019 22:50 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
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.
Forum Opties | |
---|---|
Forumhop: | |
Hop naar: |