Germany had the atomic bomb first

MagZ, I'm sorry, but what is the point? Just because a couple of shows (who's job is NOT to inform but to get eyeballs on a screen so you can buy a soap product) that uses innuendo, imagination and "what if" questions to try to make something so ludicrous sound exciting doesn't mean it's real.

Even with all the evidence posted on this thread showing without a doubt that you are wrong, there is one piece of undeniable clear evidence:

The evidence that Hitler didn't have the atomic bomb: He never used it and lost the war.

There. End of story. We win.

Really, if you're going to start believing in these shows, then I'm going to start believing that Hogan's Heroes was a documentary.
 
MaGZ said:
If you listened to the elderly lady in the documentary describe what she witnessed as a young girl, you would have to conclude the test was a successful detonation of an atomic bomb in March 1945.
Click to expand...

... because that's how we generally recognize nuclear weapons: by interviewing old ladies about what they saw when they were young girls.
 
MaGZ said:
If you listened to the elderly lady in the documentary describe what she witnessed as a young girl, you would have to conclude the test was a successful detonation of an atomic bomb in March 1945.
Click to expand...

And yet you discount the evidence of the many elderly ladies regarding the Holocaust?
 
Hogannn!

JFrankA said:
Really, if you're going to start believing in these shows, then I'm going to start believing that Hogan's Heroes was a documentary.
Click to expand...

I heard a lady say when she was a little girl she saw an episode of Hogan's Heroes and she's convinced the bomb in "A Klink, a Bomb and a Short Fuse" was an atom bomb;)
 
shadron said:
I went to the NOVA site and read what was there. Their expert, Prof of modern German History Mark Walker, makes no case, at least on the NOVA page; it just asserts it. I don't believe it, for a number of reasons:

- The bomb diagram on the page there, while remeniscent of both the gun and implosion devices, seems to be neither. I don't see how it could work. The plutonium core was surrounded not by explosive but by "deckmantel" (cloak?), whatever that is; there's no sign of the fancy cast explosives that Fat Boy required.
Click to expand...

I've seen that diagram before. It contains a serious anachronism which shows that it could not have been drawn during the war- the word "plutonium". A bit about the history of said element:

Plutonium (specifically, plutonium-238) was first produced and isolated on December 14, 1940, and chemically identified on February 23, 1941, by Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Edwin M. McMillan, J. W. Kennedy, Z. M. Tatom, and A. C. Wahl by deuteron bombardment of uranium in the 60-inch (150 cm) cyclotron at the University of California, Berkeley.[46] In the 1940 experiment, neptunium-238 was created directly by the bombardment but decayed by beta emission two days later, which indicated the formation of element 94.[29]

A paper documenting the discovery was prepared by the team and sent to the journal Physical Review in March 1941.[29] The paper was withdrawn before publication after the discovery that an isotope of the new element (plutonium-239) could undergo nuclear fission in a way that might be useful in an atomic bomb. Publication was delayed until a year after the end of World War II due to security concerns.
Click to expand...
source


The world outside the Manhattan Project didn't ever hear the name "plutonium" until after the war. Consequently, that diagram could not be the product of a wartime German bomb researcher.

There's another thing that indicates that the artist was probably someone who had some rudimentary knowledge of how the American "little boy" uranium bomb worked but no greater knowledge of the art and science of A-bomb cookery. It shows a gun-assembly weapon with Pu as the active material.

The only semi-sane way to produce Pu-239 in quantities sufficient for a weapon is by bombarding U-238 with neutrons in a fission reactor. Unfortunately, besides producing Pu-239, this process also transmutes some of the Pu-239 into Pu-240. Pu-240 has an annoying tendency to decay by spontaneous fission, so that reactor-produced Pu has a neutron background too high for gun assembly- even the 3000 fps method contemplated by the US bomb project- to do anything but fizzle.

My best guess is that the diagram is either the work of a hoaxer who didn't have access to information that today can be found at the public library, or possibly something done by a German student for a school project on nuclear power.
 
GanipGnop said:
I heard a lady say when she was a little girl she saw an episode of Hogan's Heroes and she's convinced the bomb in "A Klink, a Bomb and a Short Fuse" was an atom bomb;)
Click to expand...

I know. I saw that episode of Hogan's Heroes too!!!! So it MUST be real!!!! :)
 
JFrankA said:
... Just because a couple of shows (who's job is NOT to inform but to get eyeballs on a screen so you can buy a soap product) that uses innuendo, imagination and "what if" questions to try to make something so ludicrous sound exciting doesn't mean it's real...
Click to expand...
.
That fits the description of "Speculative Reporting" that I offered earlier:
.
Fnord said:
A lot of people obtain their 'knowledge' of science and history from such programs -- they're of a genre referred to as, "Speculative Reporting" in which provocative questions are raised and then circumstantial and anecdotal evidence are given. The facts may be presented as well, but they are usually downplayed if favor of entertainment...
Click to expand...
.
Compared to Factual Reporting, which relies on the old "Who, what, when, where, how and why" formula with vetted facts to fill in the blanks, and no obscure references to New Age paperbacks of dubious veracity, Speculative Reporting goes beyond the facts and tries to make its own case.

Thus, an article may be declared 'Wooish' if it includes the following features of the "Jennifer Strawman" murder case:

1. Provocative questions instead of stated claims: "Did Jennifer's parents conspire to cover up the facts surrounding the death of their daughter, or was there more to their involvement?" A fact-based article would state clearly, "Police claim to have uncovered evidence that implicates Jennifer's parents in a conspiracy to cover up facts surrounding the death of their daughter, warranting further investigation into their alleged complicity."

2. Loaded questions that implicate the person being interviewed, or that lead the viewer into believing that the person being interviewed is being evasive. "When did you stop abusing your daughter?" is a classic example, since the question presumes the foregone conclusion that the person being asked has engaged in child abuse, without actually accusing them of it.

3. Innuendo that leads the viewer to an 'inescapable' conclusion, whether or not the facts of the issue support the conclusion at all. "Jennifer's parents had the tools to carry our their plans. They had the desire. They even had the opportunity that only parents could have. So what other conclusions could be drawn?" This tactic is often used when the reporters know that if they make an explicit claim, they could be legally obligated to provide evidence and reference sources. "Well, we never actually accused them of murdering their daughter, did we?"

4. Speculation. The "What ifs" that FrankA mentioned, usually worded in such a way as to make the speculative statement more absurd than any factual statement. "What if out of all the thousands of towns, a random psychopath just happened to be walking through Jennifer's town that night? What if he just happened to find the ladder behind the garage?" What if he noticed Jennifer's second-story window open, used the ladder to climb in undetected, and then smothered her? Wouldn't his activities have made some noise that would have alerted the parents who were sleeping in their own room on the first floor? Why should we believe this 'Missing Stranger' theory, just because the parents deny any guilt?"

5. Circumstantial Evidence. "The parents were the only known individuals to have easy access to their daughter at the time of her death. The ladder had the father's name engraved upon it. The dog didn't bark. No one else saw anyone entering or leaving the Strawman residence that night. The mother was under treatment for clinical depression. The father had recently been laid off." No 'smoking gun' was involved, but circumstances alone are enough to raise suspicion.

6. Emotional Appeals. The real meat of Speculative Reporting, usually preceded by "What was your reaction to news of the murder of Jennifer Strawman?". Responses have more to do with subjective doubts and fears regarding the events than with any objective evidence related to the event. Everybody has an opinion, but only the most emotionally-laden opinions matter in Speculative Reporting (Faux News, anyone?).

7. Miscellaneous fallacies related to selective evidence and faulty reasoning. Bringing in an 'expert' who has never had any contact with the principles of the story, and whose academic credentials have little if anything to do with the matter at hand (i.e., a developmental psychologist expounding on police forensic procedures.), is one common practice.

Unfortunately, Speculative Reporting does attract viewers, and how many there are determines the popularity of the program, which in turn determines the amount of money they can charge sponsors (for commercial TV) or request from donors (for publicly-funded TV).

Being associated with the 'Discovery', 'History', 'Military' or 'Science' channels does not automatically confer validity to any given TV program's claims. Even being on a PBS channel does not make a program truthful. That's why many such programs are preceded with a disclaimer.

"The opinions expressed in the following program do not necessarily reflect the opinions or editorial policies of our network, nor do they necessarily reflect those of the owners or staff at this station..."
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
.
That fits the description of "Speculative Reporting" that I offered earlier:
.

.
Compared to Factual Reporting, which relies on the old "Who, what, when, where, how and why" formula with vetted facts to fill in the blanks, and no obscure references to New Age paperbacks of dubious veracity, Speculative Reporting goes beyond the facts and tries to make its own case.

Thus, an article may be declared 'Wooish' if it includes the following features of the "Jennifer Strawman" murder case:

1. Provocative questions instead of stated claims: "Did Jennifer's parents conspire to cover up the facts surrounding the death of their daughter, or was there more to their involvement?" A fact-based article would state clearly, "Police claim to have uncovered evidence that implicates Jennifer's parents in a conspiracy to cover up facts surrounding the death of their daughter, warranting further investigation into their alleged complicity."

2. Loaded questions that implicate the person being interviewed, or that lead the viewer into believing that the person being interviewed is being evasive. "When did you stop abusing your daughter?" is a classic example, since the question presumes the foregone conclusion that the person being asked has engaged in child abuse, without actually accusing them of it.

3. Innuendo that leads the viewer to an 'inescapable' conclusion, whether or not the facts of the issue support the conclusion at all. "Jennifer's parents had the tools to carry our their plans. They had the desire. They even had the opportunity that only parents could have. So what other conclusions could be drawn?" This tactic is often used when the reporters know that if they make an explicit claim, they could be legally obligated to provide evidence and reference sources. "Well, we never actually accused them of murdering their daughter, did we?"

4. Speculation. The "What ifs" that FrankA mentioned, usually worded in such a way as to make the speculative statement more absurd than any factual statement. "What if out of all the thousands of towns, a random psychopath just happened to be walking through Jennifer's town that night? What if he just happened to find the ladder behind the garage?" What if he noticed Jennifer's second-story window open, used the ladder to climb in undetected, and then smothered her? Wouldn't his activities have made some noise that would have alerted the parents who were sleeping in their own room on the first floor? Why should we believe this 'Missing Stranger' theory, just because the parents deny any guilt?"

5. Circumstantial Evidence. "The parents were the only known individuals to have easy access to their daughter at the time of her death. The ladder had the father's name engraved upon it. The dog didn't bark. No one else saw anyone entering or leaving the Strawman residence that night. The mother was under treatment for clinical depression. The father had recently been laid off." No 'smoking gun' was involved, but circumstances alone are enough to raise suspicion.

6. Emotional Appeals. The real meat of Speculative Reporting, usually preceded by "What was your reaction to news of the murder of Jennifer Strawman?". Responses have more to do with subjective doubts and fears regarding the events than with any objective evidence related to the event. Everybody has an opinion, but only the most emotionally-laden opinions matter in Speculative Reporting (Faux News, anyone?).

7. Miscellaneous fallacies related to selective evidence and faulty reasoning. Bringing in an 'expert' who has never had any contact with the principles of the story, and whose academic credentials have little if anything to do with the matter at hand (i.e., a developmental psychologist expounding on police forensic procedures.), is one common practice.

Unfortunately, Speculative Reporting does attract viewers, and how many there are determines the popularity of the program, which in turn determines the amount of money they can charge sponsors (for commercial TV) or request from donors (for publicly-funded TV).

Being associated with the 'Discovery', 'History', 'Military' or 'Science' channels does not automatically confer validity to any given TV program's claims. Even being on a PBS channel does not make a program truthful. That's why many such programs are preceded with a disclaimer.

"The opinions expressed in the following program do not necessarily reflect the opinions or editorial policies of our network, nor do they necessarily reflect those of the owners or staff at this station..."
Click to expand...

I know you pointed that out in your previous post. You and a bunch of others have been burying MaGZ's stance the entire thread. But thank you for this post. You have put this in a way that is more clear than any way I could ever dream of putting it. Thank you. May I quote you next time I'm explaining to someone why do don't watch those kinds of programs?
 
JFrankA said:
I know you pointed that out in your previous post. You and a bunch of others have been burying MaGZ's stance the entire thread. But thank you for this post. You have put this in a way that is more clear than any way I could ever dream of putting it. Thank you. May I quote you next time I'm explaining to someone why do don't watch those kinds of programs?
Click to expand...

Go for it. Anything I post here I consider 'public domain'. There is much more to "Speculative Reporting" than what I've posted here, but this is the gist of it.

Oh, and it's sometimes called "Tabloid Journalism" as well, and seems to be used extensively when making claims that Crop Circles are made by space aliens.
 
Last edited:
I'm probably going to deeply regret this, but its like picking at a scab, sometimes you just can't help it.

What exactly was the point of this post MaGZ?
As others have pointed out in great detail the likelyhood of the Nazi's having the atomic bomb given what the allies recovered after the war is pretty much zero.
And if they did have it, why didnt they use it? We're talking about a regime that had no problems with murdering innocents both in and out of combat from the moment the war started (and before). Hitler even wanted Germany to die with him and sent of children to fight combat hardned soldiers to prolong the end for a minute.

Was this some sort of attempt to show that only the horrible joo's used nuclear weapons while the nice Nazi's decided not to?
 
NWO Sentryman said:
And Alien Space Bats helped the Nazis execute Sealion flawlessly.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And just like the Nazi A-bomb, nobody noticed.

But I'm sure you can find some old woman who remembers seeing German ships sail from a port town where she lived as a child during the war, CLEAR EVIDENCE Sea Lion was actually launched.
 
So let me see if I have got this thread straight.

We know Hitler had an atomic bomb because a guy on a TV show says that he didn't have an atomic bomb, he had a dirty bomb. (But we should somehow assume he really thinks it was an atomic bomb)
And an old woman is recalling a large explosion during the second world war she witnessed as a child, which she thinks looked like a nuclear explosion according to her 70 year old recollection. (But which luckily had no effect on her health)
And because of a quote Hitler apparently made about the end of the war. Which isn't actually in this program but a completely different program about something else.
All this despite the fact there is no evidence from 2 nuclear explosions or any record of them or any damage from them and the tiny issue that despite having atomic bombs Hitler simply decided not to use them.

Have I got anything wrong there?

I'm not really familiar with this MaGZ guy - are all his threads this good?
 
Originally Posted by bethgsd View Post
And I have it on DVD so that is the proof!


JFrankA said:
Wow!! So you have access to the ENTIRE TRUE history of World War II!!!!!!

:D
Click to expand...


Well, when you add in the fact that I also have both seasons of Rat Patrol, I guess I do. Opps, missing McHale's Navy, so only the war with the Nazis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom