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

You seem to conveniently forget something:

The Bikini atoll is a real place. The traces of the blasts are very much visible today. The radioactivity is still, nearly half a century later, too high for prolonged stays.

Hans
 
I think we need to raise the intellectual and logical level of this discussion:

Ahem..

see teh attached picture. they r not really mushroom clouds they r mushrooms with a cloud. proof teh nukes r faked lolz. so there.
 

Attachments

  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    67 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
The atom bombs are supposedly giving of a very bright flash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWz-xpbKcQ0

And from 7:20 in this video an atom bomb is filmed from much farther away than in the atoll bomb clip and the flash is enormously much brighter for this explosion (not underwater but the atoll sea water must have been fairly transparent so the difference should not be this huge): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VsxW1pAFBk
 
MRC_Hans said:
You seem to conveniently forget something:

The Bikini atoll is a real place. The traces of the blasts are very much visible today. The radioactivity is still, nearly half a century later, too high for prolonged stays.

Hans
Click to expand...

How can there be traces from blasts in water decades later? :confused: And 'dirty' conventional explosives could have been used, meaning that radioactive material was added, but they forgot the tons of magnesium to create the right kind of huge flash. :rolleyes::D
 
Anders Lindman said:
The atom bombs are supposedly giving of a very bright flash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWz-xpbKcQ0

And from 7:20 in this video an atom bomb is filmed from much farther away than in the atoll bomb clip and the flash is enormously much brighter for this explosion (not underwater but the atoll sea water must have been fairly transparent so the difference should not be this huge): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VsxW1pAFBk
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. The force of a multimegaton blast will have no effect on the surrounding water. No, siree, it will stay crystal clear. Youp, crystal clear.

Hans :rolleyes:
 
Anders Lindman said:
How can there be traces from blasts in water decades later? :confused: And 'dirty' conventional explosives could have been used, meaning that radioactive material was added, but they forgot the tons of magnesium to create the right kind of huge flash. :rolleyes::D
Click to expand...

No.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Model boats and "model" explosion (wtf?), all set 10 times closer to the audience than was reported. Also, military personnel have infamously poor depth perception.

Or I could just let Anders come up with some equally nonsensical bullcrap.
Click to expand...

One would hope so, there were some 500 above ground tests in five different countries - that is a lot of guys to fake out - how did manufacture all that High explosive and implace it without anyone noticing? The explosions in the upper atmosphere must have been challenging too

Now the Hydrogen bomb, 'mike' was equal to 12 million tons of TNT that is quite an amount to secretly implace don't you think?

My, my how did this mysterious group keep all these tests undebunked while scientitst looked on.....

Explain if you will Anders how they did it, hundreds of times in at least five different countries?

LOL
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, of course. The force of a multimegaton blast will have no effect on the surrounding water. No, siree, it will stay crystal clear. Youp, crystal clear.

Hans :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But surely the ball of glowing material producing the huge flash would have a radius larger than 27 meters? Meaning that the ball of bright light would actually penetrate above the surface.
 
Anders Lindman said:
But surely the ball of glowing material producing the huge flash would have a radius larger than 27 meters? Meaning that the ball of bright light would actually penetrate above the surface.
Click to expand...

The pile of TNT to replace it would have towered 27 meters over the surface.

And yes, TNT makes quite a flash, too.

Anders, you are arguing from ignorance and incredulity.

You have only the foggiest idea of the characteristics of either kind of explosion, and you don't really want to know. You just say you think it is wrong.

Hundreds of people built and detonated those bombs, thousands saw them go off. You need something very substantial to falsify their testimony.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
The pile of TNT to replace it would have towered 27 meters over the surface.

And yes, TNT makes quite a flash, too.

Anders, you are arguing from ignorance and incredulity.

You have only the foggiest idea of the characteristics of either kind of explosion, and you don't really want to know. You just say you think it is wrong.

Hundreds of people built and detonated those bombs, thousands saw them go off. You need something very substantial to falsify their testimony.

Hans
Click to expand...

But I claim that the video is a double exposure of two separate films. One film with the ships and the clouds and another film with the model explosion. The shadows on the clouds from the explosion have been airbrushed in.

Watch the house being demolished in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqyBzXYZPoM

And compare with the clouds in this picture: http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/562/25673944.jpg

The clouds remain virtually undisturbed, plus the ships look like the aren't affected at all by the blast and are only covered by the double exposure of the model explosion on top of the film with the ships and the clouds.
 
Anders Lindman said:
But I claim that the video is a double exposure of two separate films. One film with the ships and the clouds and another film with the model explosion. The shadows on the clouds from the explosion have been airbrushed in.

Watch the house being demolished in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqyBzXYZPoM

And compare with the clouds in this picture: http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/562/25673944.jpg

The clouds remain virtually undisturbed, plus the ships look like the aren't affected at all by the blast and are only covered by the double exposure of the model explosion on top of the film with the ships and the clouds.
Click to expand...

Seriously, Anders, why should anybody care what you claim and what you think?

You have not shown a shred of evidence, just that there are some things in some videos that you feel should be different. And you have shown that you don't really know much about the subject.

Two cities were destroyed, hundreds of nuclear tests were performed, by several countries, and in the end the background radiation level of the whole planet was raised alarmingly, which eventually led the two sides of the cold war to actually agree on banning nuclear tests.

And you think you can disclose the whole thing as a hoax by studying a video and JAQing off.

Please get a grip.

Hans
 
TheRedWorm said:
You can claim anything you want, proving, on the other hand...
Click to expand...

But isn't it an obvious fake? The buildings later in the video start to burn by the heat radiation from the atom blast far away: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqyBzXYZPoM

Yet, the clouds in this video remain floating peacefully in the air even after the explosion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l6Q8Q1smwg

The heat radiation from the nuclear explosion should have evaporated those clouds. (Plus, of course the buildings in the first video are models too with a very stable camera filming them.)

I guess I could go on and on and present more inconsistencies but I will rest my brief case for now.
 
Anders Lindman said:
And compare with the clouds in this picture: http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/562/25673944.jpg

The clouds remain virtually undisturbed, plus the ships look like the aren't affected at all by the blast and are only covered by the double exposure of the model explosion on top of the film with the ships and the clouds.
Click to expand...

Do you think just perhaps the cloud you've "circled" might actually be in the foreground, well way from the mushroom cloud? :rolleyes:
 
Anders Lindman said:
But isn't it an obvious fake? The buildings later in the video start to burn by the heat radiation from the atom blast far away: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqyBzXYZPoM

Yet, the clouds in this video remain floating peacefully in the air even after the explosion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l6Q8Q1smwg

The heat radiation from the nuclear explosion should have evaporated those clouds. (Plus, of course the buildings in the first video are models too with a very stable camera filming them.)

I guess I could go on and on and present more inconsistencies but I will rest my brief case for now.
Click to expand...


No, it's not. I know you are just trolling, but if you ever decide to take a position you actually believe in, here's some advice: Don't just claim, provide verifiable evidence. Making insane and BS claims is easy and cheap (as you know), providing evidence is where its at.
 
Man I'd love to see 12 million tons of high explosives all stacked together. Now that would be a sight.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The atom bombs are supposedly giving of a very bright flash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWz-xpbKcQ0

And from 7:20 in this video an atom bomb is filmed from much farther away than in the atoll bomb clip and the flash is enormously much brighter for this explosion (not underwater but the atoll sea water must have been fairly transparent so the difference should not be this huge): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VsxW1pAFBk
Click to expand...

What the frack?

You are comparing two strips of film and attempting to judge the luminosity of a peak event?

Next you'll measure the relative stopping power of 45 ACP vs. 9mm parabellum by shooting at a sheet of paper...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom