Germany had the atomic bomb first

[dtugg]

You never answered my question: Why didn't your heroes use the bomb? Did it just slip their minds?

 

[Fnord]

For more details you will have to watch the documentary.

Does this so-called 'documentary' also include the details that you have ignored? Like...

- What are the GPS coordinates of the alleged burial site?

- How much radiation did the alleged remains contribute to the ground water?

- Why is there no trace of radiation in the environment?

- Who buried the alleged victims?

- Where is the documentation?

EVIDENCE! PLEASE!

 

[MaGZ]

Does this so-called 'documentary' also include the details that you have ignored? Like...

- What are the GPS coordinates of the alleged burial site?

- How much radiation did the alleged remains contribute to the ground water?

- Why is there no trace of radiation in the environment?

- Who buried the alleged victims?

- Where is the documentation?

EVIDENCE! PLEASE!

RealPalidin saw the program.

Since then he has been strangely silent about it.

 

[zooterkin]

RealPalidin saw the program.

Since then he has been strangely silent about it.

Well, yes, apart from saying:

Watched it. No proof.

It is one of those "What if these circumstances would mean this instead of that" type docudrama's.

MaGZ, really? This is how you garner knowledge?

 

[VonKleist]

MaGZ appears to either not be reading this thread or not be remembering the program. The test is supposed to have been held near Ohrdruf, in Thuringia. Post 8 links to a PTB report which failed to find any evidence of radiation in the soil.

 

[Fnord]

RealPalidin saw the program. Since then he has been strangely silent about it.

So, on your planet, when someone says, "No Proof" it translates into the words "Strangely Silent".

I have found a Wikipedia entry, but again there is no proof in the article.

A book by Rainer Karlsch, Hitlers Bombe, published in 2005, alleges that Diebner's team tested a nuclear device on March 3, 1945 in Ohrdruf, Thuringia, allegedly very close to, and within sight of, the site of the Ohrdruf concentration camp. Documents on which the book is based shed light on the motivations of the German scientists working on the paths of nuclear reactors and isotope separation; the scientific historian Mark Walker also published his analysis in 2005.

Allegations are not proof. Where are the documents upon which the book was based? Evidence, please?

In an approximately 45 minute made-for-TV documentary entitled Mission For Mussolini the presenters suggest that at least two bright explosions took place, in October 1944 and then in March 1945. Interviewed in the documentary, Karlsch states that the program headed by Diebner developed a radiological dispersal device or "dirty bomb". This is not a nuclear weapon as such. It is radioactive material wrapped around high explosives.

A suggestion is not proof. A 'dirty' bomb is not a nuclear bomb.

First, the documentary features Italian reporter Luigi Romersa (1917-2007) who claims that in about October 1-10 of 1944, on an island in the Baltic Sea near Germany, he witnessed a bright explosion of a nuclear device which he said had left a radiation residue.

A reporter (not a scientist) who is now dead made a claim (without proof) of witnessing an explosion (without explaining why he 'knew' that it was a nuclear device) and further claims that nuclear residue remained (without explaining where and how he measured the alleged nuclear residue).

Second, the documentary features a woman who said that on March 3, 1945, she also witnessed a huge explosion within Germany.

A lot of men and women witnessed a lot of explosions in Germany during WWII, with the frequency of the explosions increasing towards the end of the war -- a war that the Axis forces lost.

So far, only allegations, claims and suggestions have been offered, and without evidence to support them.

We have only MaGZ faith in a 'documentary' to go by, and as we all know, Faith Proves Nothing.

 

[Corsair 115]

via a upgrade version of the Nazi stealth fighter
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/hitler-s-stealth-fighter-3942/Overview

You mean the Horton Ho IX (a.k.a. Horton Ho 229 or Gotha Go 229)? Whose first powered flight wasn't until February 2, 1945? Which crashed on a test flight on February 18, 1945? Which never even had one combat capable model entering operational service? Which only had two examples built to completion at all? Which had a planned bombload capacity of 2,220 lbs, while the first two American atomic bombs each had a weight of nearly 10,000 lbs?

That stealth fighter?

 

[zooterkin]

So, on your planet, when someone says, "No Proof" it translates into the words "Strangely Silent".

I have found a Wikipedia entry, but again there is no proof in the article.


Allegations are not proof. Where are the documents upon which the book was based? Evidence, please?

A suggestion is not proof. A 'dirty' bomb is not a nuclear bomb.

A reporter (not a scientist) who is now dead made a claim (without proof) of witnessing an explosion (without explaining why he 'knew' that it was a nuclear device) and further claims that nuclear residue remained (without explaining where and how he measured the alleged nuclear residue).

A lot of men and women witnessed a lot of explosions in Germany during WWII, with the frequency of the explosions increasing towards the end of the war -- a war that the Axis forces lost.

So far, only allegations, claims and suggestions have been offered, and without evidence to support them.

We have only MaGZ faith in a 'documentary' to go by, and as we all know, Faith Proves Nothing.

Yes, I quoted something similar in the other thread. MagZ's response was to state that dirty bombs are a post September 11 weapon. His statements are so at odds with reality that I'm struggling to understand how anyone can take him seriously.

 

[MaGZ]

So, on your planet, when someone says, "No Proof" it translates into the words "Strangely Silent".

I have found a Wikipedia entry, but again there is no proof in the article.


Allegations are not proof. Where are the documents upon which the book was based? Evidence, please?

A suggestion is not proof. A 'dirty' bomb is not a nuclear bomb.

A reporter (not a scientist) who is now dead made a claim (without proof) of witnessing an explosion (without explaining why he 'knew' that it was a nuclear device) and further claims that nuclear residue remained (without explaining where and how he measured the alleged nuclear residue).

A lot of men and women witnessed a lot of explosions in Germany during WWII, with the frequency of the explosions increasing towards the end of the war -- a war that the Axis forces lost.

So far, only allegations, claims and suggestions have been offered, and without evidence to support them.

We have only MaGZ faith in a 'documentary' to go by, and as we all know, Faith Proves Nothing.

You appeared convinced the case is closed on the subject of Germany having a nuclear weapon. They either did or did not, which is it? The truth today is the same as the truth tomorrow.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

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.

yeah, i remember an old woman talking about rhine barges being launched from the french side of the channel that helped conquer britain without any resistance from the RN and went along really calm waters.

Although, i think the Alien Space Bats erased everybody's memory of Sealion, except for a few, which means ...


... It MUST therefore have happened.

 

[drkitten]

You appeared convinced the case is closed on the subject of Germany having a nuclear weapon.

It appears to be, yes. There is no evidence suggesting they did, and lots of evidence suggestnig that they didn't. For example, the "design" proposed demonstrably would not work, and the proposed sites for the test detonation fail to show the expected elevated level of radiation.

They either did or did not, which is it?

Well, let's see. Either : they had a functioning but radiation-free bomb that they built entirely without reference to the design documents, or they simply didn't have a bomb.

I'd go with "didn't have a bomb."

The truth today is the same as the truth tomorrow.

That's right. And the truth today is that Nazi apologists are stupid, dishonest, and morally bankrupt.

 

[Fnord]

You appeared convinced the case is closed on the subject of Germany having a nuclear weapon. They either did or did not, which is it? The truth today is the same as the truth tomorrow.

Germany had no nuclear weapon. They may have had a 'dirty' bomb, but it certainly was not a nuclear explosion in any of those allegedly 'eye-witness' accounts.

Nazi Germany never had a nuclear bomb. America did ... twice ... and won the war.

 

[MaGZ]

So, on your planet, when someone says, "No Proof" it translates into the words "Strangely Silent".

I have found a Wikipedia entry, but again there is no proof in the article.


Allegations are not proof. Where are the documents upon which the book was based? Evidence, please?

A suggestion is not proof. A 'dirty' bomb is not a nuclear bomb.

A reporter (not a scientist) who is now dead made a claim (without proof) of witnessing an explosion (without explaining why he 'knew' that it was a nuclear device) and further claims that nuclear residue remained (without explaining where and how he measured the alleged nuclear residue).

A lot of men and women witnessed a lot of explosions in Germany during WWII, with the frequency of the explosions increasing towards the end of the war -- a war that the Axis forces lost.

So far, only allegations, claims and suggestions have been offered, and without evidence to support them.

We have only MaGZ faith in a 'documentary' to go by, and as we all know, Faith Proves Nothing.

Explain to me how a dirty bomb creates a mushroom cloud and turns night into day.

Is this evidence of something?

Think now

 

[JFrankA]

Explain to me how a dirty bomb creates a mushroom cloud and turns night into day.

Is this evidence of something?

Think now

Tell me how an atomic bomb leaves no radiation and Hitler has never used it.

Is this evidence of nothing?

Think now

 

[Roadtoad]

Explain to me how a dirty bomb creates a mushroom cloud and turns night into day.

Is this evidence of something?

Think now

Where is the evidence of the mushroom cloud in the first place? And where is the evidence that it was even caused by an atomic bomb?

Trust me, I drive miles and miles, see all kinds of industrial plants and the like, creating what could be called "mushroom clouds" all the time. Air pressure, temperature variations and the like can all affect the shape of a cloud.

And turning night into day? Have you ever seen a rocket launch at night? What was Germany using towards the end of the war? Ever heard of the V-2?

Yes. This is definitely evidence of something. It's evidence that Dr. Kitten was right. "The truth today is that Nazi apologists are stupid, dishonest, and morally bankrupt."

 

[KingMerv00]

I have yet to make the 15 post mark so I can't post the link but if you search the Icke forum, you would learn how moot this thread is, as a thread there maintains that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were hoaxes. Fission is physically impossible!

Impossible?

Nagasaki before and after:

Are you suggesting that was done by conventional weapons?

 

[Roadtoad]

Impossible?

Nagasaki before and after:

[qimg]http://students.umf.maine.edu/~welchca/nagasaki-2.jpg[/qimg]

Are you suggesting that was done but conventional weapons?

Looks pretty possible to me. Can we now see the same thing for the site MaGZ seems to think was the test ground for the Nazi "weapon"?

 

[Fnord]

Explain to me how a dirty bomb creates a mushroom cloud and turns night into day. Is this evidence of something?
Think now

Ordinary explosives can "turn night into day". TNT alone will produce a bright enough flash to temporarily blind someone. I learned this first-hand during military exercises while in the service. The effect is similar to snow-blindness. Add chemicals to the explosive, and you can even change the color of the flash. This is the principle behind fireworks. While MC-ing a fireworks show, I was able to read my script by the "rockets' red glare" alone.

A dirty bomb is made by packing radioactive material, poison, or phosphorous inside the bomb's casing. The radioactive material itself does not contribute to the explosion, but is only spread by the explosion. Phosphorous bombs are built the same way. The explosion spreads the material over a wide area, and the material itself produces the long-term damage. Dirty bombs are intended to work more against enemy personnel than buildings, artillery or vehicles.

"Turning night into day" is evidence only of a large explosion -- 100 pounds or more of TNT will do it, sometimes even less. I've seen mushroom clouds produced by ordinary artillery rounds - even mortars can produce this 'mushroom' effect.

So, like I said, while Nazi Germany may have had a 'dirty' bomb, there is no evidence that they had an actual 'nuclear' bomb - one that produces an explosion by forced fission of nuclear materials.

Your claims have exceeded the available evidence, and have trespassed into the realm of faith. Faith proves nothing.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Impossible?

Nagasaki before and after:

[qimg]http://students.umf.maine.edu/~welchca/nagasaki-2.jpg[/qimg]

Are you suggesting that was done but conventional weapons?

Did you miss the rest of BaaBaa's post? It's pretty clear that s/he isn't suggesting that, except facetiously.

 

[Roadtoad]

Ordinary explosives can "turn night into day". TNT alone will produce a bright enough flash to temporarily blind someone. I learned this first-hand during military exercises while in the service. The effect is similar to snow-blindness. Add chemicals to the explosive, and you can even change the color of the flash. This is the principle behind fireworks. While MC-ing a fireworks show, I was able to read my script by the "rockets' red glare" alone.

A dirty bomb is made by packing radioactive material, poison, or phosphorous inside the bomb's casing. The radioactive material itself does not contribute to the explosion, but is only spread by the explosion. Phosphorous bombs are built the same way. The explosion spreads the material over a wide area, and the material itself produces the long-term damage. Dirty bombs are intended to work more against enemy personnel than buildings, artillery or vehicles.

"Turning night into day" is evidence only of a large explosion -- 100 pounds or more of TNT will do it, sometimes even less. I've seen mushroom clouds produced by ordinary artillery rounds - even mortars can produce this 'mushroom' effect.

So, like I said, while Nazi Germany may have had a 'dirty' bomb, there is no evidence that they had an actual 'nuclear' bomb - one that produces an explosion by forced fission of nuclear materials.

Your claims have exceeded the available evidence, and have trespassed into the realm of faith. Faith proves nothing.

You're covering information I wasn't aware of. I was a military broadcaster in the Army, back in 80-83. (Wuerzburg, Germany. Just. Don't. Ask.) I knew nothing about this.

However, I was aware of the turning night into day part. Frankly, I've seen enough footage of conventional weapons use to see that in action.

Dude, seriously. You need to post more.