Nuclear (i.e. fission and fusion) mythologies and politics

Rerevisionist

Unregistered
R
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
36

Nuke Lies site

I'm putting this neutrally-worded piece here, mainly because I found a link back to a thread on this forum.

If you google 'nuke lies' or quite a number of related topics, the forum will show up. (I don't want to post some sort of coded link).

Note that this message is only intended for serious readers, not the sort who seem to populate most of the Randi forum.

Anyway the themes explored in the forum are (briefly - there are several messages providing many links within the site, with explanations)--

** Evidence that nuclear weapons were a fraud right from the start, based on examination of film and newsreel etc records, now available as videos or course, and on documentary evidence, and also on rechecking some items of evidence, for instance the experiment referred to in Einstein's letter to Roosevelt
** Examination of how their properties had to be made up, including inconsistencies and mistakes. (For example, the radiation hazard had to be made up to keep people away - there's a photo of Oppenheimer and Groves strolling about the day after a nightime explosion, for example. And the 'mushroom cloud' was a mistake which they stuck with. - Just two examples)
** A section obviously on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
** A section on phased withdrawal - they have the problem now of phasing the mythology out, preferably while keeping their money. This means changing the previous stories and hoping people won't notice. (Typical example is the 'Monterey Group' and someone called Ward Wilson).
** Material on nuclear power, which may or more likely may not exist. Submarines are important here as they are the only objects supposedly run entirely by nuclear power. (Every electrical grid has input from conventional sources).
** Material on propagandists and generally the world situation - some of it of course connected fairly remotely. Thus Vanunu, the psychology of science frauds, vested interests related to paper money, the control of protestors, security and secrecy issues, the importance of conventional weapons, spies and the 'Cold War', and a whole assemblage of issues needs to be discussed.

I won't say any more here, but I would ask serious commentators, if there are any on this site, to have a look!
 
Last edited:
Um, yeah, sure "only intended for serious readers, not the sort who seem to populate most of the Randi forum", you mean sceptics who aren't going to buy in on some CT that you are alluding to?

And you are too lazy to even post a w w w.yourevidence.org here link?

So when you want to talk you could pretend to post more than an allusion to CT.
 
Radiometric dating, which works on the same principles (and involves nuclear reactors to run the analysis, for at least some of the dating methods), works. We know it works, because we've used it countless times in geology, paleontology, archaeology, and medicine. As I said, the fundamental principles are the same as those for nuclear bombs. So I'm gonna go ahead and say that at the very least, that forum isn't looking at the full picture.

Feel free to start with the No True Scottsman attacks.
 
There a a number of nuclear powered surface vessels, mainly aircraft carriers.
Then there are the "Germany detonated an atomic bomb in 1944/5 but was too nice to use it" myth pushed by some of the more idiotic neo-nazis and the "Japan detonated an atomic bomb in 1945 in Korea" story that started after WW2.

ETA: don't forget the loons who say the sun doesn't rely on fusion for energy production either.
 
Last edited:
[1] I don't know what 'CT' is, but I'd guess it's an in-house thing like some other phrases I won't bother with.

New posters are not allowed to post external links, no doubt as an anti-spam device.

From memory, as your details are off-screen to me now, you've posted something like 27,000 postings to this site. And you can't even be bothered to either address my summary comments, let alone look at the site.

[2] Radiometric dating has problems which any informed person should know about, but I won't list comments here as it's irrelevant to the issue, just as your comment is. The issue is vast amounts of energy being given off, whether this is feasible, whether in fact it's true, whether it would cause an explosion.

[3] It's true there are claims made about nuclear-powered ships. However, if you check you'll find they receive huge amounts of fuel, typically for planes. If you make a little effort you'll find the evidence for their being nuclear-powered is shaky. No wonder you've had time to post 5000 comments.
 
Okaaaaay... It's not April 1st.... this isn't posted in "Humor".... I don't get it.

:crazy:​
 
Hold on.

So are you doubting not only that there has existed nuclear bombs but also nuclear submarines, nuclear warships and nuclear power plants ?

I just want to be clear.
 
Well I for one think this is a great idea and needs to be promoted in as many media outlets as possible. If you want to send me your credit card details and your SSN for confirmation I will make sure this project gets all the attention it deserves
 
[2] Radiometric dating has problems which any informed person should know about,
Click to expand...
Careful. While I won't pretend to be the most knowledgeable on the topic in these parts, I AM an informed person. I know the limitations--but I also know that there are no serious flaws in the methodology, if properly applied.

but I won't list comments here as it's irrelevant to the issue, just as your comment is.
Click to expand...
This shows how ignorant of the topic you are. As I said, the exact same principles are involved in both radiometric dating and in nuclear explosions. The physics is the same--explosions just happen a tad faster, is all. Also, many radiometric dating methods require nuclear reactors--which literally work on the same principle as a nuclear bomb.

This is relevant. In order to prove that nuclear bombs are a myth, you have to prove that the physics doesn't work--which means you also have to prove that radiometric dating and nuclear reactors don't work. So long as the physics for radiometric dating and nuclear reactors is valid, nuclear bombs are at least theoretically possible.

[1] I don't know what 'CT' is, but I'd guess it's an in-house thing like some other phrases I won't bother with.
Click to expand...
CT is shorthand for "conspiracy theory".

[3] It's true there are claims made about nuclear-powered ships. However, if you check you'll find they receive huge amounts of fuel, typically for planes.
Click to expand...
Considering the fact that no one has ever said that jets are nuclear-powered, this is entirely irrelevant. So long as a nuclear reactor is at work in the ship, your ideas are hogwash.
 
Considering that the effect of some surface explosion, and some underground explosion can still be detected and studied, and considering the plenty of evidence on hiroshima, nagazaki, mururora, bikini atoll, mexico desert, and I pass many others, considering the physic behind it is well known and I have used part of it for my own experience, considering radiometric dating, considering a lot of other element, I have to think you probably don't know a single bit on the physic radio activity.

What sort of evidence do you have for your CT ? You can't put a link but you can put in plain text the link replacing . by the word dot. Example : www (dot) google (dot) com.
 
I guess nuclear subs receive huge amounts of airplane fuel too. Together with liquid oxygen.
What about nuclear power plants ? They do produce power, and they have radioactive materials inside (and outside, after accidents). All you need is to get yourself a Geiger counter and travel to Japan right now. Or you can even build one.
Of course they can make energy from coal, and mask it with radioactive materials. ;-)
 
One other thing to consider: We have evidence in the form of increased C14 and other radiogenic isotopes that fairly large amounts of radiation were released on the surface of the planet starting a while back. Makes certain dating methods useful for Holocene-era stuff difficult, as you have to factor that spike in to your analysis. The only thing that can really explain that spike is nuclear explosions.

Then there's the impactites. You find them in two places: large bolide impact crators (well, not Chixilub size, but on the bigger end of the normal impact crator spectrum) and nuclear test sites.

It's not just newspapers and TV shows that need to be disproven--nuclear weapons have had an impact on numerous fields of science. There's physical evidence, in the form of isotopic data, shock quartz, and other geologic evidence.
 
Rerevisionist said:

Nuke Lies site

** Material on nuclear power, which may or more likely may not exist. Submarines are important here as they are the only objects supposedly run entirely by nuclear power. (Every electrical grid has input from conventional sources).
Click to expand...
I have been in the nuclear plant of a submarine, and been on board that submarine underwater for over two weeks observing its operations first hand. There was no other source of power than the nuclear power plant.

My best friend and countless co-workers I know have worked in nuclear power plants on submarines, aircraft carriers, and electrical power generating stations. None have intimated it was all an elaborate hoax.

My son is currently in training to run nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power is real. Your hoax theory is not.
 
Dinwar said:
Careful. While I won't pretend to be the most knowledgeable on the topic in these parts, I AM an informed person. I know the limitations--but I also know that there are no serious flaws in the methodology, if properly applied.

This shows how ignorant of the topic you are. As I said, the exact same principles are involved in both radiometric dating and in nuclear explosions. The physics is the same--explosions just happen a tad faster, is all. Also, many radiometric dating methods require nuclear reactors--which literally work on the same principle as a nuclear bomb.

This is relevant. In order to prove that nuclear bombs are a myth, you have to prove that the physics doesn't work--which means you also have to prove that radiometric dating and nuclear reactors don't work. So long as the physics for radiometric dating and nuclear reactors is valid, nuclear bombs are at least theoretically possible.

CT is shorthand for "conspiracy theory".

Considering the fact that no one has ever said that jets are nuclear-powered, this is entirely irrelevant. So long as a nuclear reactor is at work in the ship, your ideas are hogwash.
Click to expand...

See--you're perpetuating the lie.
Since the bibble proves that the world is only 6000 years old, anything that shows something different obviously has problems and major flaws... [/idiot mode]
 
You know, if there IS a worldwide conspiracy I want in on it. I mean, I've worked for them for years, and I haven't so much as received a Christmas card. You'd think they'd be more generous--I mean, building a fake nuclear power plant and financing all the fraudulent research is a huge expense, and giving me a $100 thank-you card at Christmas would be a rounding error in the budget. I can't stand cheap jerks like that.
 
Dr.Sid said:
I guess nuclear subs receive huge amounts of airplane fuel too. Together with liquid oxygen.
What about nuclear power plants ? They do produce power, and they have radioactive materials inside (and outside, after accidents). All you need is to get yourself a Geiger counter and travel to Japan right now. Or you can even build one.
Of course they can make energy from coal, and mask it with radioactive materials. ;-)
Click to expand...
Just like the nuclear powered icebreaker I spent some time on.:rolleyes:
 
OK. First of all, my stance on this forum is basically that Randi is a coward, who will not deal with serious issues; hence the time-wasting over trivia such as 'homeopathy'.
______________________

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.

______________________

Anyway to take others in sequence--

DINWAR appears to think radiometric measurements are entirely confirmed. In fact this is not the case, since there's usually no solid way to confirm them, especially with dates going back millions of years. (I'm not saying the people involved are in any way to blame - it's not their fault their work is misquoted).

DINWAR also seems to think that radioactive decay is the same as a chain reaction. Of course it isn't.

DINWAR - the point about supposed nuclear powered ships is that they have conventional fuel. So there is a possible alternative propualsion system.

AEPERVIUS - if you look on nukelies you'll find careful examination of e.g. trinitite, the entire set of Hiroshima and Nagasaki events from the Manhattan Project, delvery of the supposed bombs, bomb-aiming etc, eye witnesses, and of course a lot more. There's an introductory linked index to the entire site. If you're not interested enough to look, it's up to you.

As I said before, a lot of evidence is present in published media, including DVDs of supposed atomic bombs over Japan, DVDs showing supposed tests in the 1940s thru 1960s, and general civil defense and other scare films of the time.

DR SID - It's not as simple as you seem to think. For example, the Japanese admit to not using test equipment to monitor supposed spreads of radiation - they use computer models. Our site has a section specifically on nuclear power and the doubts around it.

LSBB - feel free to join nukelies and give evidence. BUT saying things like "I've worked all my life on computer simulations" or "I've often scrubbed the outside of nuke engines" or "I've been told the room is dangerously radioactive" count as testimony, but not evidence.

RWGUINN - you're a laugh a minute. It must be a great experience to have a drink with you.

CATSMATE - Did you check the engines in detail?

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.


Please re-read the Membership Agreement to which you agreed when you signed up. Name calling and insults can be a breach of Rule 0 and/or Rule 12.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LandR said:
Hold on.

So are you doubting not only that there has existed nuclear bombs but also nuclear submarines, nuclear warships and nuclear power plants ?

I just want to be clear.
Click to expand...

Sorry, LANDR, I missed this one. OK in sequence of believability:

[1] Japan was not nuked; it's a complete fabrication.
[2] That doesn't prove atom bombs don't exist. But...
[3] H Bombs as depicted are a fake
[4] That doesn't prove they don't exist, either. But...
[5] It would be easy for a test carried out now, or to have been carried out any time since 1945, to show they exist. But they haven't.
[6] There are therefore obvious queries over the physics, looked at on our site - including the influence of 'e=mc2', whether fission can go critical, and if it did whether it's controllable, and how dangerous in fact a handful of neutrons could be
[7] Nuclear power may not work - the evidence needs examination which would have to include electricity grids. It would spill over into windpower as a ppossible fraud, too.
[8] Nuclear subs are of importance because they are the only objects allegedly using only nuclear power. (There could be installations e.g. in Antarctica, but appear not to be).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom