So just a few short weeks ago there was talk and and panic about New York prepping for a nuclear fallout type of incident. Now with the narrative that President Trump had the nuclear codes or whatever, one must ponder the possibility that they are getting ready for their false flag event involving nuclear weapons...
I really hope I am over thinking this...
How and why do you suppose that is? It seems to me that radioactive fallout is the #1 nightmare we've been sold when it comes to nuclear bombs. So the only two that have ever been known to be used produced virtually no harmful radiation? That seems highly suspicious to me and supports the argument that perhaps these were just different types of fire bombings.
I didn't imply any photos were fake. I suggested the aftermath damages of the Dresden and Tokyo fire bombings looked the same as those of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. So much so, you basically couldn't tell the difference unless you were intimately aware of the city structure and layout prior to.
As to models, some of the examples I've seen were clearly tiny models. I'm not saying all of them were, but some.
Galen Windsor. I think "fear porn" is all we've ever heard when it comes to radioactivity. Windsor suggests exactly that. And this is the basis of the questions I'm asking. The "vaporization" of anything within the blast radius is one highly questionable aspect. But far bigger is the idea that the entire region is going to be radioactive for 50 kajillion years is the much more frightening aspect. Neither of which quite OBVIOUSLY occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Which begs the question...
A false association isn't going to get us anywhere...weak analogy and suggesting such leads me to believe you're not an honest broker here.
You've now destroyed any chance of having a healthy debate with comments like this in the last two paragraphs. Cya later...
The reason that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "back in the running" was because the fallout threat has been overblown for over half a century. There is fallout and one should have a healthy concern about it. But if the prevailing winds blows it out to the ocean, hardly anyone will have a problem. This is why they situated the big nuclear tests out there. The only problem arose when a Japanese fishing boat happened to be in the fallout zone of one test, and the crew got a strong exposure. You will have to get used to the reality of nuclear weapons, not the Urban Myths. I am serious about "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons." It can be bought from Amazon. Read it. There are lots of interesting facts about such devices. (You will learn about the dual flash from the fireball.)
The photos don't show the blast damage very well, which would have been absent from the firebombing results (which would have burnt most of the structure anyway). The flash shadows of victims are not possible with firebombing. Anyway, as I said, the bomber crews witnessed the flashes and had to get the hell away from the shock wave. One bomber to accomplish what 279 bombers in Operation Meetinghouse did to Tokyo? That's the difference between nuclear weapons and saturation fire bombing.
No tiny models. There is no practical way to simulate the blast effects with models. You are being misled by the lighting conditions, I expect (dark background). You have to realize that these films were taken at very high speed with a very stopped down aperture to prevent the film from being saturated by exposure to the fireball light. Under those conditions, ambient daylight looks like the dark of night. Conventional structure looks flimsy when blown apart with a shock wave, but that is reality. Do you think it is any stronger in the face of a tornado that rips it to shreds in real time? Atmospheric pressure is about a ton per square foot. Differential pressures of even small amounts can develop huge forces against walls and blow them away.
The nukes/jets analogy is exact. Everything we know about nuclear weapons comes from the government. Everything we know about jet aircraft comes from the government. There is no more reason to doubt the existence of nuclear weapons than there is to doubt the existence of jet aircraft. I don't know what you mean by "honest broker," but I am certainly telling the truth. I have had 40 years as a weapons and aerospace vehicle engineer, and my interest is to dispel stupidity and fortify understanding.
You don't like my candid assessment of your intellectual position, so rather than deal with it like an adult, you take your marbles and leave the game. I dislike doing that, so here I am, willing to answer questions or clarify points. You have to realize that what you have accepted as "truth" about nuclear weapons has been pacifist fear porn conditioning. You say you question everything---except the fear porn. If someone says the porn is bogus, you are so attached to it that you accuse the nay-sayer of being a "dishonest broker." Those of us in the industry know that it is impossible for nuclear weapons to wipe out life on Earth---albeit, they could make life pretty miserable for some nations for years. (But even Germany recovered from the widespread devastation of World War II in a decade.) No harm to get back in the game and learn. You might have to question your porn, however.
Well I question everything, no exceptions. Especially so when it is coming from a group of proven liars and deceivers. However, if you read my comments with an open mind, you'll see I'm doing three things:
My assertion is that the people/groups that control this world are lying to us about everything that gives them an advantage over the masses that we cannot easily verify for ourselves. Full stop. The PRIMARY ways they take advantage of us are two; First, through fear, and second through division/judgment.
In the case of nukes, it is via fear. A more perfect example of such is hard to find. However, there is one that I harp on all the time here at GA. And that is via the fake construct known as "viruses" which is perhaps an even better way to spread fear; case in point, the past 3 years. I've become an unwilling expert on the subject and I butt heads with hundreds of folks here on GA and in real life that know virtually nothing on the topic, other than they swear up and down that viruses are OBVIOUSLY real because they caught one off their spouse/child/parent/co-worker many times in the past. It is this singular place from which they argue, as if I'm entirely unaware of it.
And I don't mean the muddy the waters here regarding viruses. I'm simply using it as an example of my skepticism versus both "experts" in the field and the masses. I've had a few rounds of argument with some "experts" here in the fields of microbiology and bacteriology. I do understand what they've been taught and I also understand why it is difficult for them to unwind their formal education. Built into the lies are many half-truths as well as truths.
I point all this out to suggest that amidst the deceptions around any given topic are many appearances of truth, as well as some smaller truths. The idea that "the whole thing is a lie" is very rare in my experience.
Which leads us to some of the things you point out.
Your jet engine analogy wasn't worthwhile in my estimation as it's an example of something we can easily verify - we've all been on them, or at a minimum seen them. And secondly, it in no way resembles an attempt to cause us to be fearful. In other words, they're not using jets to take advantage of us. If anything, we could argue that jet engines have been a great benefit to humanity, enabling us to see the world with relative ease.
Now, regarding the models. I'll have to do some digging around and see if I can find some examples for your review. I've seen many videos over the years pointing out problems and anomalies, but I didn't save them and can't really remember which channels/sites they came from. But I'll dig around. Are there examples of legit nuclear tests out there? Almost certainly. But you're of the opinion that there are NO EXAMPLES of fake/phony nuclear tests out there. I find this to be a big weakness and error in your judgment. There are almost certainly both.
Your "candid assessment" of my intellectual opinion demonstrates one painfully obvious fact. You're what I call a "One-Sided-Expert". You've demonstrated that you know nothing of what people who question nukes have to say. Otherwise, you would have mentioned their arguments, understanding where they're coming from, and then pointed out the errors in judgment or logic that they made. But you haven't done any of this, instead you've made SWEEPING arguments that I, and by proxy them, are just 100% completely wrong......because....you say so.
I find this the "One-Sided-Expert" opinion to be amongst the least persuasive at this stage of the collapsing institutional narratives all around us. Case in point, the dozens of virologists that are still in denial of the irrefutable proofs that their specialty is 100% pseudoscience. Ironically, there is really nothing to even argue with them about. They simply ignore/dismiss all that demonstrates the falsity of their position while simultaneously reiterating what they've been taught.
I've lost all respect for them as a group. I do understand how difficult it must be to assess one's life work as being a fraud, and I also understand that admitting such threatens their livelihoods. But considering the insanity we've just been through, and the likelihood that the cabal is going to try it again with some new variation of "SheeplePox" soon enough, their personal egoic cognitive dissonance and financial well-being should have taken a backseat long ago. They are letting down the masses in multiple ways and their failure to address the elephant in the room is going to cause another wave of death and destruction with the next fake virus campaign they unleash as the millions who trust them will look to their guidance in the future. Simply put, those that aren't "in on the scam", like Fauci, Birx, top brass at CDC/NIH, are cowards.
Now, I say all that not to direct any of it your way. You appear to know much of what you're talking about. That's great. I'm interested in engaging with you on the topic. As I've pointed out in this thread, I'm asking questions and haven't yet arrived at a conclusion. What I've said is, I have many doubts. And from my position, having uncovered dozens upon dozens of lies and deceptions over the years, the nuke story smells fishy to me. I'll also add that "the bigger the lie", the easier it is to pass off, and the harder it is for the average person to even consider as a possibility. One such lie is so big, that you get banned here on GA for even talking about it as at least one of the mods here finds it to be so ridiculous that it simply has to be impossible. Said mod is 100% wrong. But convincing him of even a modicum of legitimacy around it has proven impossible. He simply isn't interested, much like the many duped virologists and doctors.
Thus, I'm categorizing you in much the same way. I could be wrong, and I readily admit this, but for now, I see you as a "One-Sided-Expert", knowing much about what you've been taught and involved in, but not knowing much, or perhaps anything, about many of the doubts that have arisen around nukes. At best, you may have heard of some of the doubts and problems around the stories we've been told about nukes from other "One-Sided-Experts" in your field. This is also a BIG PROBLEM as their "version" of the "Other-Side-Experts" is almost always some watered-down, misrepresented version of the facts presented. Once again, case in point, the mainstream virologists who sweep away the problems with their field that have been pointed out by appealing to authority (all my colleagues agree), ad hominem attacks (he stands alone and was de-licensed making him a quack), but mostly, ignoring the simple facts in their efforts to remain relevant.
My question to you is, have you read or seen any materials that cast doubt on the reality of nukes? If so, can you address what these authors/posters are wrong about? To wit, just "saying they're wrong" because you "say so" doesn't help in the least. I would need to know the WHY/HOW/WHAT they are wrong about.
Have you read "Hiroshima Revisited" by Michael Palmer? -> https://ia801705.us.archive.org/2/items/Hiroshima_revisited/hbook-0.9.16.pdf
Have you read "Death Object: Exploding the Nuclear Weapons Hoax" by Akio Nakatani"? -> https://www.amazon.com/Death-Object-Exploding-Nuclear-Weapons/dp/1545516839
Both of these authors have put a lot of effort into investigating the subject of nukes. So much so, that a sweeping argument that "they're wrong" holds no water from my POV. As mentioned, I'd need to see the WHY/HOW/WHAT EXACTLY they are wrong about. Said errors could then be brought to the author's attention for evaluation, rebuttal and/or correction.
Here is my basic stance; I find that when somebody suggests that the other side's position is LUDICROUS/IMPOSSIBLE/ABSURD, that they really know nothing about it, rendering their "One-Sided-Expert" opinion utterly baseless. In poker terms, this is an easy "tell" in the land of conspiracy factuality. I see it every day. And I understand, when it comes to nukes, much like viruses, 99% of the population is likely in this camp as they've had no reason to doubt the official narrative.
So it would be of the utmost value to me, and other people questioning the nuke story, if you would take the time and effort to learn what "the other side experts" have to say and then render a balanced assessment with your new-found knowledge and awareness. Typically, such an assessment reads like: "Those who question nukes make the following interesting points...A,B,C...their skepticism is warranted and their questions are sound, but here is what they failed to understand or take into consideration....yada yada". That's the kind of analysis that gets my attention and sways my opinion.
I've uncovered way too many lies that the masses accept as truths at this stage in my life. The entire field of western allopathic medicine is 90% lies. The entire LEGAL SYSTEM is a grand deception that's so big, nobody can even grasp it without months of study and re-wiring of brain circuits. Our "government" is anything but a government, hijacked long ago (1865) by the Crown Corporation. Nothing short of dissolving it in its entirety will suffice. And then there's that even bigger lie that will go unmentioned as to maintain my ability to post here.
I mention all this so that hopefully you can see that it's easier than you think to pass off MASSIVE lies in all walks of life. They're everywhere. And to suggest that it's impossible/ludicrous/absurd that we've been lied to about nukes doesn't persuade me in the least. If anything, it causes me to dig deeper when I see a subject so wantonly dismissed. It would be one thing if there were just some random posts or videos doubting the veracity of nukes. But when entire 300+ page books have been written on the subject, it's worth a deeper dive and an understanding of what these people have to say.
And on the flip side of that argument, I will admit that a big book does not necessarily indicate truth or veracity. I own the two leading books on oncology (cancer research), both of which are over 3000 pages. That's 6000 pages of massively complex and technical medical-ese jargon. And virtually all of it is fundamentally wrong. Shocking? Most people brush off my assessment as I did not graduate medical school with a degree in oncology. That's their loss. Blind trust in authority is why we find ourselves in the current position we're in.
Lastly, I'll add that one interesting take on the subject of nukes is that it would be a perfectly reasonable position to suggest that the story of nuclear capability would act as a tremendous DETERRENT against future wars/skirmishes by various despots and aggressive nations. The mere thought of having your entire nation vaporized in an instant would be more than enough to stifle leaders with an itchy trigger finger. That could have very well been part of the strategic planning that went into the end of WWII. Obviously we can see that it was quickly turned into "cold war fear", but that may not have been the original intent. Just some extra food for thought.
I'll poke around and see if I can dig up some of the nuke test videos that I found sketchy in the past. I'm not holding out hope that I'll find many as censorship is in full effect today. But I should be able to dig up a few.
In the interim, I'm hoping you read the free book by Palmer so that I can evaluate your newly gained "Multi-Sided-Expertise". If he's fundamentally wrong and you can make a solid case, I'll be more than willing to drop my skepticism. I look forward to it actually. Hearing from somebody who understands both sides of an issue is a rare treat in this day and age!
Too long for this venue. You are completely overlooking my connection to material evidence (trinitite from the Trinity test) and direct eyewitness testimony and evidence (my father at Nagasaki and my colleague digging out post-underground-test instrumentation). You are also overlooking the photographic record, and I suggest obtaining a copy of "Trinity and Beyond" or watch the video here: https://ok.ru/video/380190132976. And I worked with colleagues who were instrumental in building nuclear weapon delivery systems (B-36, B-47, B-52, BOMARC, Minuteman, SRAM). I've worked with Los Alamos National Laboratory concerning a defense system concept that involved nuclear devices. This is actual technology. You are like the guy who is telling me there are no zebras. I'm not interested in wasting my time, but I am interested in shedding light. (I've glanced at some of Palmer's book. He strains at gnats, and clearly has no understanding of the nuclear detonation process or how to read the high-speed photographs. He criticizes one photo of the developing Trinity detonation for not seeming to be luminous---not realizing that the image was taken so fast, the image was not strong enough to burn the film. He dwells on the mystery of mustard gas, and seems to omit the likely presence of nitric oxides produced by the detonation, a result of high-temperature high-pressure conditions in air. Inhale them and they burn the lungs.)
We aren't the only ones who have nuclear weapons, you know. There is evidence enough of this, through the other test programs (UK, France, Russia, India, Pakistan).
Okay, I'll take a look. My mind is open. Maybe we "have them now", but my doubt still lingers on what we claimed we had in 1945.
In spite of all your knowledge, are we correct in assuming that you’ve never, not once, seen a nuclear weapon detonate? In exactly the same way that people who ‘know’ viruses exist have never seen a virus?