A4E

Me too. But it is liberating to know that they are not based on logic or evidence and pretty much nothing else, and can be disregarded. So that they do not clutter the mind in whatever I am doing. I dont know if nuclear bombs, or black holes, or ISS is fake, that is why I want to talk about it here. I dont think I would be incorrect in saying that this is the most friendly, tolerable and open minded forum around, so why would I waste time anywhere else. There are quite alot of lies and hoaxes and staged events and disinformation and suppressed information. One example of suppressed information is that cancer organizations are notorious in doing NOTHING to research or help in any way to get cancer cures to people, and doing EVERYTHING they can to slam down on any such information getting out to the public. If you have ever or will give money to these bastards then you are helping to suppress cancer cures. I dont want to rant on that in this thread though. I would like it to be about ISS.

Thanks for the posts so far. I sure hope it is real, else I would become quite disappointed in humans. Faking moon landings in 1970 is not a very big deal imo, but making it look like there are people in this station in orbit would be much more offensive to many I am guessing. I have studied some videos (supposedly) from the station, and have only found a few minor weird things, but then I noticed that all videos with the crews being interviewed are always concluded around 20 minutes. The longest one I found so far is 22:37 with fade out. There are many of these "crew talks about" videos and they never seem to go any further than 22:37 afaik. It does not fail. And from the ones I watched, they always end with "that concludes...". Why do they have to 'conclude'? Cant they just continue talking until the interviewers or the crew gets bored or whatever like in any other interview? Did anyone see a crew video that was longer than this? And it doesnt seem to be a standard for any of their other videos. If they are interviewing anyone else on earth they use 50 minutes or more than an hour or anything they want, but talking to the crew have to be concluded after around 20 minutes (most are 19:30). Whats the deal? If it is faked, then do they have the ability to use a zero G plane for a maximum of 23 minutes ? Is that possible? Another thing that strike me is that they supposedly deal with weightless objects all day long, and so that would become boring after a while, but when they handle the microphone in the interviews, they like to play around with it and even seem invigorated by what happens. That does not speak well of people who supposedly handle all kinds of weightless objects every single minute, or atleast every hour each day. Am I on to something, or does it sound like nonsense? Edit: This one is 24:26 So if there is no cut, it would be the longest I've found so far. No wait, how can they make this one 33:36 when all the others are around 20? Maybe they just want to keep them reasonably short and this particular one was allowed to go on for longer.

I have always accepted the ISS, and had no real reason to doubt it, but when I watched this video today, I dont know what to think about it anymore. I found the original, and he starts talking about ISS after 6:07 This was the edited video I watched, with some other things added. I had always thought that it seemed pretty easy to make it, considering that adding parts to it would probably be a huge challenge in space, and it seemed perhaps a little too easy to live in. So I guess I had some very minor questions atleast while I was accepting it. Lets say its real, with people, but what they give out to the audience is for show and continous funding. Is that a possibility? What do you think? (after watching the video)

Even if all of your post was ment as a joke, Its hard for me to not take offense when you say I have preposterous and incompetent arguments against the moon landings. I get very motivated when someone challenge me on something I have spent alot of time on and know to be a hoax, so I am ready to go if you so desire. You say that nuclear bombs and the moon landings are lies, but I have a feeling you might hold the other side. It is ofcourse up to Nasa to prove that they have been on the moon, and you might have all this sorted out, so then I would like to hear all your good arguments for a moon landing. Because you surely had all the details explained to you by either Nasa or someone who had high knowledge of what went on in Nasa. So I await your list. You dont have to write much if you dont want to, you could forexample just write, "moon rocks, reflectors, photos", but you could also just find pro moon landing websites like this, and copy their lists. In any case I have gone through it all before afaik, but I would love to do some dismantling again if you are up for it.

I see that black holes have been mentioned so I thought I would share what I have come across on them. If it does not fit in here then tell me to delete it or something. This guy says that black holes do not exist. And a google search brings up more interesting sources on challenging the black hole. What is your take on this?

Great channel. lots of interesting videos. This one was very close to my opinion of the universe.

Thanks for the post! Interesting! No, you dont have to come to terms with anything. I did not come to terms with most idiotic things in society for most of my life and that has paid off immensely in the end. I advice you to not give up and continue on your own course. You are not a slave to the world. Complaining about other people's behaviour is not productive either. And 12 year old boys can be emotional too.

My life and health was both crap before I supplemented. In addition to the other benefits, like more energy and general well being; I 'changed' my low metabolism with Iodine after watching this by Brownstein. I 'changed' my arthritis with calcium and gelatin after listening to Joel Wallach. If I ever get cancer or any other illness, I know I will be able to 'change' that aswell, because I know how to use the internet. Takes time to wade through garbage I know, but all the right information seems to be there. The placebo effect does not work on me. I was somewhat unable to walk to the store because my knees would start hurting after a few minutes from arthritis. Now I walk around everywhere and get tired feet instead of inflamed knees. Getting your values checked from a person in a white coat tells you very little about your health. These values do not say anything about how much your body needs or wants. My own opinion is that the body will utilize as much as it can of what it is supplied, and keeps a reserve for scarce times. Reading the values will then just affirm wether you have reserves or not. Trying to get vitamins and minerals and other things from the food we are able to buy today is an uncertain strategy. Sure its possible and I also prefer to try, by buying vegetables and such, but without supplements many years ago, my health would probably be much lower now. With arthritis it is hell to try to work out. An alternative to supplements that I have embraced, is seasoning. Lots of different seasoning have vitamins and minerals. So I bathe my food in different spices every day and I feel very good all day. Maybe the anti supplement people are using lots of seasoning too, so that they dont see any need for the supplements. But if you want to understand a reason why supplements are both in need and usefull, it is because we dont live in or with nature so much anymore. The food we buy comes from fields that may or may not have minerals. It is akin to rolling a dice. I watched a debate on tv many years ago about supplements. The debate itself was not what stuck with me. What I remember was that all the pro supplement people had straight backs and had more energy and just plainly looked more healthy. There was either just 1 or a few anti supplement people, and his head was hanging and he seemed to have trouble sitting straight while he was proclaiming the complete unusefullness of supplements. Ok, he was a bit older than the others, but thats not really an excuse. Overweight can be an effect of vitamin or mineral deficiency, because the body is trying to obtain vitamins and minerals by eating more, so supplements can be a very good option for those who want to loose weight. Hope you found this post usefull. I want to help. <3

What comes to my mind now, all though I know most of the history, is that they opposed the most powerfull country at the time according to this page. Risking their lives to create something for themselves. I dont know any people who are willing to risk their life to make a new nation. But I guess they had alot of support from the people so that it was inevitable for someone to initiate it anyway.

In my country people will praise democracy, and use it as an argument to defend that a minority will always have the right to force everyone else to distribute their money and make laws that they dont have to follow themselves. Because in those people's words we the people decide who will have all this power, so then its ok, and you have no right to complain if you dont vote. I am pretty good at making examples, so I was trying to come up with a theoretical example that would dig up the emotions of people and make it impossible for them to not understand. -Every 4 years we will vote for one travel agency. The different travel agencies can say and promise whatever they want to the people. They could say anything about the vacations they provide, because there will be no consequences to their statements before the election if they win. The travel agency that is elected will forcefully take money from everyone every year, according to your income. Some will have to pay more, others less. Then the travel agency will buy the same vacation for everyone. Same location, same duration, The same way of transport if at all possible. Only time slot would be different. If you can not go on vacation in that time slot, or you dont want to go to that location, or you dont like the mode of transport, or you don't want to go on vacation at all, then that does not matter. You can choose not to go, but you still have to pay your share. Also you are not allowed to change your vacation at the destination, or supplement it with any additional field trips or anything that was not allocated to you by the travel agency. Forinstance you cannot spend extra money to improve your accomodation or the type of transportation at the destination. If a minibus is used for an excursion, then you cannot hire a taxi for the same excursion. If the vacation was not provided to you adequately. If there was something wrong with the mode of transport, or food and shelter at destination, then you can fill out some applications to be provided the same vacation again, until it is delivered adequately. But you will never get your money back. Usually when a new travel agency has been elected, it is unable to significantly change the type of vacation for people in the following year, or years, but they have some good excuses for this, which is that they just need more time, and that the previous travel agency is largely to blame because of the way they handled things. After the fact, if you did not vote for a travel agency, then you have no right to complain. It is we the people who have voted for this travel agency, so it is ok. And it is the best system for people to have vacations that we have come up with. If you dont like the way vacations are provided, then you can always vote for a new travel agency after 4 years. What do you think?

Are there really still people who think that the most important food for trees and plants is going to be our doom? A person today who is able to use the internet has no excuse whatsoever to believe in this religion. Why even take the topic seriously. I spent/wasted alot of hours getting informed about it, but now those hours feel like I was trying to find out if computer games are real life or not. Just stop taking it seriously imo.

Cancer can already be cured, both with natural things like hemp oil and olive oil, aswell as atleast 1 artificial chemical. But cancer is a big business, which is why only the most expensive and least effective methods are going to be touted. Aids is an immunodeficiency that has nothing to do with HIV, if HIV even exist. I will paste details that I have written before. AIDS stands for "acquired immunodeficiency syndrome" and is a condition. This condition is being falsely linked to HIV. There is no scientific evidence that HIV leads to AIDS. People will get AIDS (the condition) from malnutrition, deseases, drugs and artificial chemicals (what brainwashed people call medicine). This means you do not have to be afraid of HIV or AIDS unless you are malnurished, have an other dangerous desease, are taking drugs, (which can make you malnusrihed because you dont feel like eating), or swallowing artificial chemicals which will mess with your natural body. To build on your good examples, it would have to stop them trying to destroy it, because the humans might hurt themselves in the process.

I have been away for a while so have not been able to reply, though I see that I did not really need to reply on anything. Thanks to pretzelogik for defending the premise of the thread. It would look pretty dead without him. I was wondering if we have some real concrete scientific, multiple party, non corrupt, observational data from any test. Where is the undeniable proof and evidence, and confirmed and verified data? Example, I could hypothetically buy some dynamite, Put it somewhere safely away from people, and then set up several videocameras, and invite scientists and journalists, for me to then state that when I light the fuse on this object, it will eventually explode. And afterwards all the unrelated and unbiased parties who attended could promptly confirm and write about the explosive ability of dynamite. After dynamite was invented, did they have to keep 'testing' its features for 70 years afterwards, and have a very effective taboo about never using it in any wars? Ok, nukes can hurt the people in charge, which Stefan use as a strong argument *. but now I dont think that is such a good argument, because what about fighter aircrafts? In theory Putin could order a fighter pilot to take out Obama today, and vice versa. (Not that those are the real people in charge). So why do we not have fighter aircraft agreements, or stopping countries from obtaining fighter aircrafts? How about the more obvious guns? Guns can hurt the leaders aswell in any number of ways, and normally police, soldiers, (and bodyguards?) have guns, which could at any moment go crazy and shoot a nearby leader. I was convinced by the nukes can hurt the people in charge argument before, but not now. Too many things can hurt the people in charge already. As I have said before, one of the sure signs that something is a lie, is that it is being forcefully repeated over and over again nonstop without question. The possibility that it is all a hoax makes so much sense when it comes to everything involving the mythical nuclear bomb. It is a very good feeling to accept that there is no real evidence for nukes. You all should just accept that too imo. I know most of you probably have'nt accepted that there is no evidence that humans have been on the moon. It is 100% guaranteed humans have not been on the moon. That is why noone will find any legitimate evidence for it. And I think the same is true for the story around the capabilities of 'nuclear bombs' at this point. * = I know he use it as an argument for why wars between 'nuclear nations' do not start, but still it is an argument I now feel needs some disassembling.

Somewhat very unrelated, sorry, but I feel I have to share my thoughts. Netanyahu was addressed in a positive manner around the hour mark. This was disgusting to me, because I watched most of his speech, when he was invited by the US government to speak, which is another reason he is not to be trusted when he is allowed to speak in a very corrupt government. In his speech it was all about how Israel is a big victim and that all the other countries near Israel are bad, and that we need to be aggressive towards all the bad countries near Israel and to not give them any credibility. Basically preemptive warmongering. Also he was babbling on about a nuclear agreement I think, which is meaningless, since there is no real evidence nukes even exist.

1. Quite alot throughout my life. 2. From how you described it I am familiar with it yes. I read this paragraph many times, and it seems I cannot do anything else than agree with most of what this paragraph is conveying. Am I right in that you are saying professions do not keep people from being duped by topics out of their expertise? For example, a biologist should know that artificial chemicals have never been in nature before, and that all life thus do not recognize it, but that doesn't stop people in white coats from pushing it on gullible people. When I was able to question what I had taken for granted about 7 years ago, I started trying to help other people in my country question what they had been told, on a forum I frequented. And was met with a hailstorm of swear words and banter and condescendment. I progressively moved to youtube comments and other friends on internet and family. After finding stefans youtube channel, I became aware of the issues you mention, and as such have tried to spread this as much as possible to family and friends and where I frequent on the internet. I understand that you probably think questioning staged events leads nowhere, but if it had not been for the authors of the film loose change, then I probably wouldnt even be here until perhaps much later, and so also not talking about these issues. I assume you evaluate revealing staged events for what they are, as of no value, but you are wrong. All staged events have an agenda, which is most often to take away freedom from people. If you value freedom, and Stefans opportunity to speak and spread his philosophy, then you should not look down on people like me. Though people like me are used to getting attacked from every angle. Also, at any moment a staged event can be blamed on Stefan, which could lead to the state forcing him into jail or something else that will disable him. So I would recommend you, and everyone else, to lend an ear to people like me, as it is indeed in your, and the worlds, best interest to further peace.

Im not sure what you are asking. 911 and sandy hook are examples of 100% fabrication. Adams brother seemed to not have been a part of it as he was making some rather emotional tweets while he was being accused and out of town. edit: It is still unclear to me how many people were in the towers, it could be anything from 0 to maybe 200 imo, so I guess I shouldnt say for sure that I know it was completely 100% fabricated, but usually staged events, like the boston smoke bombing, do not have any real casualties. I dont see anything pointing to 'let it happen' for 911 or sandy hook, or most of other staged events. And the reason is that it will be alot harder to have control if they were going to mix it with anything they think might happen. Ie they might have thought that those russian brothers were going to be at the boston marathon, but that is a risky approach. Therefore it is more likely that they were playing a part, or just being framed as patsies whether they went to the marathon or not. The dubious cellphone recording of them shouting "we didnt do it" could point to convenient patsies. Regarding 911 the same script seems to have been sent out to the controlled media, and they used atleast 1 crisis actor for certain, who was put there to sell the structural failure... I dont wanna call it a hypothesis as that would give it way too much credit. For the most famous lesser magic, there is the first episode of "the lone gunmen", where one of the cast members said on Alex Jones that the CIA came by to give some instructions. That togheter with all the other small predictions means a high probability of advance knowledge.

I am assuming that you are talking about actual evidence, and not the official storyline of these events. The whole point in being informed regarding these topics is that you will see there is a severe lack of evidence, and major problems with physical laws being broken. I have extensive experience debating people about all the topics. I can imagine you think I am easily swayed by everything on the internet, but I know what I am talking about. In the last 7 years... I have spent atleast 600 hours on the 911 staged event. (I will call a spade a spade) I have spent atleast 250 hours getting informed about health and what the body needs from nature to function well, and how artificial chemicals reverses your health. I have spent atleast 250 hours on the faked moon landings. I have spent atleast 150 hours on the nonexisting link between HIV and AIDS, and what people actually get AIDS from. I have spent atleast 100 hours trying to find evidence for gas chambers but all I found was evidence against. I have spent atleast 100 hours on the sandy hook staged event. I have spent atleast 80 hours on the boston smoke bombing drill. I have spent atleast 60 hours finding natural cures for cancer, like hemp oil. I have spent atleast 40 hours brushing off all the lies about Osama. I have probably spent another 200 hours on miscellaneous stuff. I have only spent around 8 hours on nuclear bombs so far. Another way to have an informed opinion is to have an expert give you his opinion about something. Like photographic experts can tell you that the pictures were not taken on the moon. And rocket engineers can tell you that it would be almost impossible to hear the astronauts in the lunar lander while the thrusters were on, and that the dust from the surface would engulf the lander and would make a significant crater beneath the landing point. The landing pads were clean in photos, so there goes logic out the window. Knowledge is important yes. And I read the entire encyclopedia when I was 11-12, and stayed at home reading science magazines all through out my teens, while others were pouring alcohol into their bodies. And internet has been my best friend for many years. However it was not until about 7 years ago, when my brother showed me the film loose change, that my mind opened up to the possiblilty that I might have been misled. Once you are able to question that of which you have taken for granted, then a genuine search for truth can begin. You are incorrect. 2000 architects and engineers have signed onto questioning 911 if you think events like 911 are protected by experts.

Before I read the comment from the guy I mentioned in OP, I was sometimes evaluating what the point in investing time and energy in trying to make a life for myself woud be, 'knowing' that evil stupid people in control could unleash a nuclear war at any point. This scenario has been, and is being repeated over and over again everywhere. This is obviously having an effect on people. I am fairly convinced that they dont work, since after I got the lead I have compared it to many of the other lies in society and thought about its inconsistencies for the first time. One of the ways you can tell if something is a lie in the media is to look for how much it is being repeated. For some periods in my country man made climate change would be repeated every day in prime time on television, and they are very quick to repeat it even further many times per day when it is warmer than usual, and these people vanish when it is colder than usual. And no they dont have to be a part of any conspiracy. They believe the hoax and are probably just encouraged to speak their mind by someone in the higher ups who also believe the hoax. By not letting the man made climate hoax control my life, (and all the other lies), I can focus on those things I want to do, but until now the nuclear war scare has been in the back of my mind making some choices for me. Earlier in my life, I let people in white coats control my health, which was another huge mistake. 1 artificial chemical had made me slightly retarded for almost a decade. Getting off that crap and getting into vitamins and minerals and oils and other good stuff from nature was a very effective and satisfying experience. I wouldnt have been on this forum if I had continued to trust people in white garments. When it comes to nuclear bombs, it makes sense, because evil people would have surely used them in as many places they could get away with. And how come so few countries have any? The science and technology of nuclear bombs is supposed to have been out there for a long time. I say BS. Ok, so then I wanna ask some annoying questions. Did you make one? And detonate it? Did you observe someone making it and see it blow up? Did someone you trust to tell it like it is, make one, and then he watched it blow up? Did someone you trust to tell it like it is, tell you that he saw someone make it, and then he saw it blow up? If not, what is the reason you think they work? Theory and practice do not always go well togheter. Also, I could make a mushroom cloud in one of the ways that the wiki page states can be done, and litter the ground with radioactive material, and then tell everyone that I just detonated a nuclear bomb. How will you be able to tell the difference to a 'real' nuclear bomb detonation? Thanks. Undoubtedly the many years of brainwashing had put everyday radiation and radiation from nuclear stuff separate from eachother.

Everything affects everything all the time imo. In this case he talked about nuke hoax sites which made you quote him and write what you did. And so it also changed your brain and everyone elses brain who are reading this thread. Those who know how to create propaganda are well aware of such effects. Imagine how your perspective on nuclear bombs would have been if there were no TVs. Or no radio. or no newspapers. Governments indirectly, through their agencies, like ie CIA, are found to supply groups they created with various weapons all the time, but I dont see any repercussions. I've never had any first hand evidence that radiation is dangerous, but yes you are right, I still believe radiation is dangerous. Better safe than sorry I guess.

Thanks. I found the wiki page for mushroom clouds too. Seems like they had been sighted as early as 1782. And can be created a number of ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud I cant see any evidence that nuclear bombs have ever been used in any wars, and I have never seen one explode personally. This is very strange, because if it is such a powerfull weapon, then I believe that someone would atleast use it. So is it ok if I instantly dismiss the claim that nuclear bombs exist?

This is a strawman, there does not have to be any collusion. And your argument can be countered with this example: Lets say you are stealing candy from a store. And then you see another guy stealing candy from the store. What do you do? Tell on him? You have a mutual interest to continue stealing from the store. In this argument I suspect you are assuming that scientists and engineers know everything there is to know about one field, and as such you are insinuating that if there are any lies, they would automatically know about it. Scientists and engineers are people too and as such also susceptible to misinformation and lies. (see: global warming) The other reason your argument fails is that scientists and engineers are not omnipotent, they probably dont even have a clue what is going on outside their office, figuratively speaking. And certainly those staging events did not knock on their door to tell them what they had done. So no they dont have to be complicit in any significant manner other than not asking questions, and not actually doing scientific research. If you think most or all scientists are doing real scientific, rational and logical, from the ground up, research, then I have this bridge for sale... Those who did ask questions were probably fired, which is also the case today in other fields.

Here is a an informative engaging video about the contents of vaccines If you would like to watch:

I feel i need to post this because vaccinations is a very chaotic topic, and everyone here deserve to know about the other side that is not part of governments around the world. http://www.naturalnews.com/vaccines_get_the_full_story.html Download free report. Here's some of what you'll find in this eye-opening report from the International Medical Council on Vaccination (www.VaccinationCouncil.org) A list of the many MDs, PhDs, NDs and other medical professionals who are signing onto this document. Why vaccines have NEVER been proven safe or effective. A list of some of the serious health side effects caused by vaccines. Why autism is associated with vaccines. The profit motivation behind the pharmaceutical industry's big vaccine push. A list of which institutions and organizations profit from your sickness. The shocking truth about what's IN vaccines (aborted fetal tissue, 59 different chemicals, DNA from diseased animals and more) An overview of some of the most dangerous vaccine ingredients The truth about conflicts of interest in the vaccine community and why doctors profit from vaccination policies Why vaccinated children have far worse health outcomes than unvaccinated children How to opt out of "mandatory" vaccines. Important advice for parents about how to protect the health of your children while saying NO to vaccines Online resources for learning more about the dangers of vaccines A list of recommended reading materials for further education

I feel I have to thank freedomainradio for this forum even existing, because my legitimate concern (and joy) that nuclear bombs do not exist is not being deleted. Not only that, but every reply is an intelligent approach to the topic. And no flaming. Thanks! Any other forum and I imagine it wouldnt stay up for even an hour. I found a 7 year old thread on a science forum with this topic. It quickly deterioated into personal attacks and other flaming.

Seeing that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were probably firebombed, it would mean that nuclear weapons have never been used in any wars. Did humans suddenly become so nice to eachother in wars that they gently put nuclear bombs aside? Knowing how many assholes and evil inconsiderate people there are everywhere, I dont buy that. I was trying to find alternative ways of making a large bomb that is glowing and spewing smoke upwards which will make a mushroom shape. Maybe it is possible to mix something like TNT with smoke bomb material that will be on fire. Think about it, where is the smoke coming from in alot of the test footage? Does a nuclear bomb make smoke? How does that work? Does it dig into the soil and take it up into the air? But alleged tests at sky level also make smoke, where is the smoke coming from? I cannot find anything that explains why they produce alot of smoke. The reason I focus on the smoke, is because allthough some of the video footage is probably fake, many have realistic looking smoke and pyroclastic effects that would be very hard to simulate at the time imo. Also the shockwaves look real, so there probably would have been somekind of explosives involved. We know that it is possible to make large explosions wiithout the mythical nuclear bomb. It would probably cost alot of money and such, but so do the mythical atombombs. I know if I could use taxpayers money for anything I wanted, I would probably have some fun making large explosions, except I would have a hard time lying to people about what it really was. But considering that it was probably a propaganda power wrestle between USA and Russia, it would be deemed ok. With the added sideeffect of making people scared. And fear equals control. I dont know much about bombs, maybe someone else can come up with an alternative that would be able to make sufficiently powerfull bombs with alot of smoke. The chinese test footage looks very different from american test footage. That is a reasonable point of view, but you are protecting those who claim that nuclear bombs are real. If I claim that lightning is energy weapons from aliens, then it should be up to me to prove that, not others to disprove me. Again I can use the example of climate change. They have no evidence that releasing carbondioxide will make any significant changes to the climate. Is it up to me to disprove their climate science? Thankfully I dont really need to either since lord Monckton is doing alot on that front. Ok, so you could argue that nuclear physics is 100% correct and real because of nuclear power stations. Perhaps so, but it would be sort of like saying manmade climate change, with the release of carbondioxide, is real because plants absorb and use carbondioxide for fuel.