pretzelogik

The Manhattan Project, featuring commentary from a veritable smorgasbord of statists, eugenicists and academics. Leo Szilard, later of birth control fame, was part of the wildly fantastical Szilard-Einstein letter story. Evidently, they futzed around with this letter to the president for months, despite their fears of Germany feverishly working on this doomsday technology. Of course, the fact that Standard Oil was responsible for German fuel during WWII, Allied Electric helped with German planes, Henry Ford built their tanks, and Germany inexplicably had funding for all these military luxuries and more after their crippling defeat and egregious WWI reparations, casts some doubt on the level of German enmity to begin with. Perhaps JP Morgan's coffers were not depleted after funding the Bolsheviks. Also included is commentary by H.G. Wells (most are familiar with his War of the Worlds hoax), progenitors of unverifiable physics claims, a laundry list of military functionaries. Surely, they would have no reason to lie about a Sword of Damocles weapon technology that could be hung over the neck of the world for decades. Perhaps we can rely on the warm feeling of trust and credibility that Oppenheimer himself inspires: Were those placed in acting roles that demanded more than what they had in their limited skill set wiping away non existent tears back then as well? While it's worth examining the pedigree of those involved in the creation of the narrative (did you know that the brilliant Feynman thought a windshield would be an acceptable substitute for welding goggles when viewing an atomic flash?), it's best to let the only other thing that has been given to us in support of the myth speak for itself, namely imagery. Below is footage of Ivy Mike. Particularly curious is the sequence of frames from 2:00 to 2:10, one of which was featured on the cover of Life magazine, April 19, 1954. Sympathy can be given to those who took in the news reels at movie theaters during that time for believing this to be unadulterated footage of an actual event, it was heavily promoted as such. 60 years on, not so much.

Clouds could dissipate or be vaporized by heat, movement by disincorporation, but the likelihood of another reforming in the same shape in the same spot would be rather remote. If, as it would appear, the video anomalies are not a slam dunk, there are many other inconsistencies in the narrative. But assuming this investigation has led me down a garden path, what would I stand to gain by becoming convinced all over again that nukes did exist?

It disappeared because it was obscured by the video layer containing the explosion effect. Unless the shock waves sent the original cloud scurrying and another one condensed and formed in the same size and shape in the same place (in 18 seconds). For some, the latter explanation would stretch the boundaries of credulity to say the least. The static cloud phenomenon is common to test footage, as well as the inability of the bright as the sun explosions to produce shadows.

Like this one, the 1970 Licorne test with the impervious clouds? Spectacular, yes?

Am I? Just whack a couple of these together and a whole city, gone.....

Earlier in the thread the statement was made that gravity is determined by mathematics. There was a metaphor about videos of people floating and whether that would disprove gravity. It was actually quite apt. As people don't typically float, we would be wise to question the authenticity of a video depicting floating people. As we see metals banging together quite frequently, a video depicting this ordinary phenomenon causing the vaporization of a city should similarly invite some skepticism.

I don't know whether nuclear bombs are feasible or not, perhaps they are. My questions concern the proof, as opposed the conceptual. It may be possible in theory to bombard lead with radioactive particles and transmute it into gold, but I would be suspicious of images an narrative alone if I ran into an entrepreneur with that business model who was looking for investors. As far as gravity goes, my understanding of the relationship between gravity and mathematics is the inverse of your description, i.e, gravity exists and its effects are observable and yet quite independent of mathematics. Mathematics may be used to make reliable predictions about the effects of gravity on matter, but mathematics cannot create gravity.

Thank you so much for taking the time to thoughtfully consider this possibility, if even as a thought experiment. In the cannon footage, the report occurs simultaneous with the explosion, which would be an impossibility in real life. The bus and car destruction sequences are recycled from other films for some reason. In the "Nukes Don't Exist" by Hoaxbusters clip, there are a number of frames in which parts of the explosion are static as other parts unfold around them, which would also be a real world impossibility that would be attributed to different layers of video, one static, the other dynamic. In many videos that can be found on the Atom Central archive, clouds as well as the smoke trailers, remain undisturbed by shock waves - also attributable to separate layers. As far as the available arsenal of special effects in 1953, while it does appear that the War of the Worlds had far less access in terms of special effects, an argument could be made for the military having greater access to special effects than the top studios in Hollywood. In fact, the military may have had the top studio in Hollywood for a number of years, the Lookout Mountain Observatory where the atomic/nuclear footage was produced: http://wikimapia.org/11710014/Lookout-Mountain-Air-Force-Station, While it may appear that Hollywood did not have the means to produce effects such as those in the nuclear archive, this may have been an issue of budget. The official narrative of the development of the atom bomb is that it took a tremendous amount of economic and human resources. Those resources could have been used for the development of a hoax, with the same level of security restrictions, probably more than what would have been in place for actually creating a real bomb. It's doubtful that a Hollywood studio could have been granted permission to film a 100 Ton TNT explosion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYNLGFNCXgA What I have come to understand is that there is no division between the military, Hollywood and the so-called "news" media; they are all operating in concert under the same herd management directives. The military has no particular interest in destruction, per se, and if the objectives can be met by deception, resources are used more efficiently.

Maybe the confusion we are having here is how we define the word evidence, and your complete unwillingness to comment on what I have presented as evidence. Mathematics is not evidence. Equations are not evidence. Video, pictures and narratives are evidence. In a court motivation is considered in drawing a conclusion. If it can be demonstrated that what is presented as evidence is fictional, and that those who contrived it had a powerful motivation to have done so, the equations are immaterial as is the layman's understanding of such equations. My question to you is: What do you have invested in this particular narrative that makes it impossible for you to answer whether the video evidence presented is contrived or not? Do you really believe that they fired nuclear shells out of a cannon? Those videos are presented as facts. I find them nothing short of ridiculous fabrications. Don't cannons jam or misfire? Did a bunch of military personnel stand around watching this thing be shot out of a cannon knowing the potential for mishap? These are common sense questions and don't require an advanced degree. Why do you refuse to comment on the imagery? Please pardon me if you are visually impaired, it is not my intention to be rude and if you do not have full visual capabilities, please accept my sincere apologies. From Wiki about Fat Man (strange that this stuff is even on Wiki, but whatever): ...beryllium–210polonium "urchin" is crushed,[33] pushing the two metals together and thereby releasing a burst of neutrons into the compressed... ...pit of the nickel-plated delta-phase alloy of 239plutonium–240plutonium–gallium (96%–1%–3% by molarity).[34][35] A fission chain reaction then begins. The tendency of the fissioning pit to blow itself apart prematurely is reduced by the inward momentum of the... ...natural-uranium "tamper" (inertial containment). The tamper also reflects neutrons back into the pit, accelerating the chain reaction. If/when sufficient fast neutrons are produced, the tamper itself undergoes fission, accounting for up to 20% of the weapon's yield.[30] So, we are still talking about pushing two pieces of together and Kablooey! a city is vaporized. I find this to be an extraordinary claim. So, I think the evidence should be extraordinary. I find the evidence, once again, imagery and narrative, to be quite thin.

"In essence, the Little Boy design consisted of a gun that fired one mass of uranium 235 at another mass of uranium 235, thus creating a supercritical mass. A crucial requirement was that the pieces be brought together in a time shorter than the time between spontaneous fissions. Once the two pieces of uranium are brought together, the initiator introduces a burst of neutrons and the chain reaction begins, continuing until the energy released becomes so great that the bomb simply blows itself apart." http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fission/Fission7.shtml

My point is that whacking two pieces of metal together (even enriched uranium) will create enough force to level an entire city is an extraordinary claim and, a la the title of latest call in show podcast, requires extraordinary evidence. I question the evidence. Why is the evidence (imagery) that supports bombs continually sidestepped? Have you even looked at the clips?

I don't see how bombs are related to reactors. My research into reactors is inconclusive; I have no direct experience of a reactor or an accident, nor any means of verifying such. It seems everything we have been told about the negative impacts of nuclear fallout is false. Whether I believe in fusion or anything else or what else anyone believes about things is immaterial. My point is and has been, that the evidence provided to support the existence of nuclear bombs is weak. If the evidence of the existence of bombs in the clip below looks like a real unadulterated video capture of an event to you as opposed to a creation of Hollywood, then I cannot see how discussion of fusion is relevant.

I don't know if I am correct in my assumption that I am somewhat more advanced in age than others that frequent the boards, but my memories of the cold war and the nuclear threat are very vivid and these concerns caused me a great deal of stress when I was younger. I recall a lot of serious talk in the media about how if some madman were to get control of the doomsday button we would all be vaporized. I internalized this, as I knew intuitively then that we were ruled by psychopaths. The media frenzy regarding the nuclear threat has tapered these days, which is a bit strange if the threat really does exist, or maybe everyone is just more comfortable now with the sword of Damocles over their heads. My gratitude comes from being able to dispense with the fear entirely, as opposed to having an uneasy trust that the psychopaths will do the right thing. Maybe I was just a more of a worrier than most once upon a time, but nukes of any stripe give me zero concern today. As far as the awkward glances, I only share these types of thoughts in places where I have some trust they will be well received or at least the ridicule will be polite; the FDR forum has been very kind in that respect and the flaming has been mercifully minimal. It's a radical idea even for this forum and judging from prior experience in the real world, I have a lot to learn in terms of presenting challenging ideas to those invested in the popular narrative.

I get a suntan, therefore whacking metal together makes terrific explosions? I experience gravity, I don't believe in it. I have no experience of nuclear bombs,, other than what I (or we) have been told. The point is, I have examined the story and the evidence and they come up short in terms of credibility. It would be really great if someone would actually refute at least one of the points being made here in regard to the evidence presented, but at his point my experience is that of countering beliefs rather than a measured examination of facts. That's okay by me, as these beliefs must serve a purpose, I am just thankful to not have them any longer. Cheers!

How many years have to pass with no further evidence to bolster a narrative have to pass before the story simply becomes a myth? If there hasn't been a bomb used in one hundred years, is that enough time? I may be around for that, in fact. I would hope people begin to doubt something they have seen no actual evidence of in one hundred years, but there are a lot of people that believe in the bible, so I have my doubts. So far, anyone who has posted a contrary response to the OP's proposition has made assertions based on their beliefs, which are comprised of argument ad vericundium, and have not addressed the points which are referenced from Heiwa's site. Also presented have been the conflict of interest argument, the contradictory narratives and the contradictory imagery, none of which have been addressed. So, in essence, the statements could be summarized as: what is proposed conflicts with long held beliefs, the idea that those beliefs could be false creates discomfort, that discomfort can be discharged by posting base assertions that continue to reinforce the beliefs. So far FDR has done some good work in dislodging the faith held in the state, religion and the family, but there seems to be a particular reverence for state funded science that is curious, to say the least.

I appreciate your sticking it out, although I don't entertain any notions of presenting a case that would be compelling enough for you to change your mind. To be fair, I have not rejected anything out of hand, just merely pointed out the conflict of interest that exists when the parties that make a claim provide the evidence to support it. That in itself should be enough to raise suspicion. Add that to the fact that the claim itself is rather large: that smashing pieces of metal together will level an entire city. But we can still look at the evidence. Motion and still imagery that conflicts with itself and shows obvious signs of manipulation. A narrative, presented by the originators of the claim that also has numerous conflicts and inconsistencies, supported by some fantastically tall eyewitness accounts about people walking with their eyeballs in their hands and the like. Add to that 70 years without another nuclear incident, despite the fall of the USSR, rogue regimes run amok, zeros for pass codes, Clinton losing the pass codes, silos in disrepair, drunken nuclear security, etc. Not to mention the wind down of the narrative which I vividly remember being reminded of daily while living in fear of annihilation. I imagine young people nowadays barely think of it. Could a threat this monumental simply be normalized, or has it reached its expiration date in terms of effectiveness?

The scientific community involved in competitive enterprise and accountable to pressure from the marketplace to produce accurate, reliable, and verifiable results is trustworthy, obviously. Academics, the military and to some degree medicine (how is Ebola a military issue?) are immune from such pressure and will deliver whatever is required by the state, irrespective of its relation to reality. This is not to say that everything that comes out of these institutions is false, but it should certainly be suspect, If they can get the job done with a hoax, why not? Climate change for example, is just is another variant on a tested and proven methodology of using false narratives to drive the herd. As far as I know, there are a lot of scientists on that band wagon.

I doubt that I will ever feel like I have time to read books by Manhattan Project physicists. If the thesis of the OP, that nuclear bombs are a hoax (and there is more than ample evidence to support this thesis, studiously avoided in this thread, BTW) is to be fairly considered, there is a clear conflict of interest in using the narrative generated by the perpetrators of the hoax to support their claims. The record of prevarication by the state has been shown to be remarkably consistent. The default position of any critical analysis of a story perpetrated by the state should be one of extreme skepticism. The scientific apparatus of the state, particularly universities and the military, who are tremendous beneficiaries of state largesse and stand to lose the most should their scams be revealed, are still not subject to the scrutiny they deserve. I see no reason that the words of state funded academics or scientists should be given any more credibility than that of politicians, as they all feed from the same trough.

The "somebody would have talked by now if it were a hoax" is a contradictory argument, if you believe that nuclear bombs are real. The official story is that there were thousands of people working feverishly on the development of the bomb and that the work was done in total secrecy. Then as now, even if someone had wanted blow the whistle, there would have been no means for the message to have been heard beyond whom they could have told directly and that conversation would likely have been met with the same level of receptivity demonstrated here. I find it more believable that people with a conscience (which according to conventional wisdom, is most of us) could have been convinced to participate in a hoax that created the illusion of a weapon of mass destruction than to have participated in making one. Of course, firebombing cities is more than a hoax, but that was most likely done with the full complicity of the Emperor, or whoever was pulling the strings in Japan. Why else would General Curtis Lemay have been awarded the Order of the Rising Sun?

This is a bit OT, but I have become interested in the rocket equation as of late, although I do not know how it is formally described. Can you provide a a brief summation without it being to burdensome a task for you? Also, are you of the opinion that the healing arts are subordinate to our current understanding of chemistry and that allopathic medicine has scientifically invalidated other approaches?

What do you experience when you hear people accepting the things listed above at face value? Have you examined the connections between Hollywood, the military and the news media, and the possibility that events can be fabricated out of whole cloth but portrayed as real?

I find a tremendous advantage to the psychological benefits that accrue from being unconcerned with the negative impacts of any "nuclear" (unclear) event. It's best to mitigate worry about things out of one's control regardless, but the level of comfort is much more profound when the monster in the closet turns ot to be a coat.

Well, they certainly do in the footage, the simplest explanation for which would be video compositing. A more complex explanation would be required to resolve how an atmospheric nuclear blast that would create a seismic disturbance 9300 km away (according to the Journal of Geophysical Research: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ065i010p03445/abstract) would leave clouds undisturbed.

Experience takes precedence over narrative, so what people say is irrelevant. As far as credentialism is concerned, you are obviously in the category of experts as opposed to quacks, so perhaps you could explain how a particular area of an explosion could remain static during the dynamic unfolding of the event. This should be trivial for a nuclear physicist. Consider my inquiry research. I can't imagine having a more qualified respondent provide an answer to to my question about experiencing and/or avoiding fissionable materials.

So we are to ignore all the fabricated video evidence, the conflicting eyewitness accounts, the fact that a "bomb" has not been deployed in any conflict by these psychopaths in 70 years, the dubious origins, etc., and rely on fissionable material in the atmosphere as confirmation? Just so I know what to look for, can you give me an idea about your pesonal experience of fissionable material and let me know how I might observe or confirm it for myself? It sounds like something I might want to avoid if possible and I spend quite a bit of time in the atmosphere.