Al Borealis Created a Podcast That Dives Deep Into Topics That Matter |389|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Sep 18, 2018.

  1. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,401
    I hadn`t heard this, but I have wondered vaguely about this possibility! Do you have a link - preferably one with some discussion of the science?

    It would explain the remarkable fact that no more weapons have been fired in anger, and both sides seem happy not test further. Even NK has not exploded a bomb openly. There have also been no accidental nuclear explosions, and no terrorist has ever managed to use one.

    At one level, the physics of an atomic explosion seem simple - one neutron hits a fissile nucleus causing multiple neutrons to emerge to trigger more fission. However I`d bet you need secret information to calculate under what conditions you would get an explosion. Having seen how easily the science community can obfuscate the truth about a number of other subjects, it doesn`t seem impossible.

    David
     
  2. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,401
    Well curiously that film must have been somewhat doctored I think because the explosion and the bang are simultaneous, and you would have to be a number of miles away just for equipment to survive the blast. Remember that sounds takes five seconds to travel just one mile!

    Look I am not saying this is likely, but I'd sure like to look at the websites that Mishelle has presumably found!

    I was away and using a rather clumsy touch screen, to I ended up not quoting her correctly, so I have posted the same comment again under an attributed quote, so that hopefully she will see that in her inbox and respond.

    We are discussing all sort of weird theories about what governments have or have not hidden about UFO's, and by those standards I don't think this is utterly impossible. I remember the fear we all felt at at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I am amazed to be nearing old age without even one of those terrible weapons being fired in anger, or suffering some sort of catastrophic accident. My amazement is even greater because so many countries now have this technology.

    This does not change my original comment - worrying about CAGW, that has produced 0.8 C temperature rise (with no error bars that I know of, and no proof it was caused by CO2) over 138 years seems a bit idiotic while we have thousands of those weapons ready to be fired at a moment's notice.

    David
     
  3. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,480
    I don’t think talk about nukes being a CT is worth pursuing, like everything else, I won’t say 100% that they’re not, but I really don’t think so.

    What I DO find interesting, are the miraculous ‘escapes’ (for want of a better word) we are said to have had where nukes are concerned. Was this really just luck? Perhaps not. I am willing to believe that when nukes are involved, bigger fish that humans may be interested. I like to think this is like a Mum taking a sharp edged object away from her baby, who no doubt will be upset.

    If we were to fire off a nuclear device in anger, I don’t know, but I think the consequences for doing so would be catastrophic for our and many other species of life on the planet. So if indeed we are like kids messing about, higher intelligences may use all sorts of things to avert this act. Maybe direct mind control, technology we can only dream of or other ‘techniques’.

    You can only get lucky so often - usually.

    I forgot to say that there’s a lot of evidence that UFOs are interested in Nukes, I have a great book by Robert Hastings which I’d recommend. The book (UFOs & Nukes) includes the case of shutdown of US ICBMs by UFOs at Malmstrom AFB, which is an amazing incident which occurred in 1967, which is a long time ago. Who knows how many other such events occurred, both in the US and in other countries where these weapons exist?
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2018
    David Bailey likes this.
  4. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,401
    I am very loath to going down the road of redefining words and phrases. As far as I am concerned 'Magic' has to mean something recognisably like we always thought it meant, or we shouldn't use the word. If 'injecting belief' simply means giving someone a motivational pep-talk then I certainly don't think the process should be called magic. If however, the 'injection' was done in some more subtle way - say by appearing to the person in his/her dreams, then I guess that would count as magic.

    David
     
  5. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    236
    Home Page:
    What sort of science would make it work for you?
    What if you saw photos of a thriving Hiroshima today, where once the science said that b/c of the nuclear bomb there would be nothing but devastation for hundreds of years?

    tell me what sort of proof you would find convincing and i will try to find it.
     
  6. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,038
    Steve likes this.
  7. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,401
    Well is there no more discussion than that? I'd hoped you might point to a website with some discussion of the issues.

    On the face of it, the state of Hiroshima today is extraordinary, but I am sure science can argue that away. The problem is that sometimes science argues validly, and sometimes it doesn't - it isn't immediately obvious whether there is a clear case for a CT here.

    David
     
  8. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    236
    Home Page:
    David, here's a career chemist who makes the claim about the nuke hoax:

     
    David Bailey and Steve like this.
  9. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    236
    Home Page:
    Here's an interview from THC with Eric Dubay who discuss it with some big claims, I realize they are not scientists, but I think there's some good points here.

     
  10. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,480
    Unfortunately this video is blocked in the U.K., because of copyright by Channel 4.
     
  11. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    236
    Home Page:
  12. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,480
    No, I could open the 11min video about Nagasaki but the one above has the same problem as before. That’s a pity. :(
     
  13. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,480
    I’ve seen this guy before, maybe five years ago. The exaggerations that he talks about where nuclear materials are concerned are quite believable. If it is thought to be more deadly in nature than it actually is, it would no doubt be a deterrent to thieves or anyone else. He doesn’t say anything about Hiroshima or Nagasaki being conventionally bombed or anything that was too far fetched for me. I listened to around 40mins of it.
     
  14. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    236
    Home Page:
    That is a pity! It's over 3 hours long and I'm at just over 2 hours, loads of telling footage I think from the MSM.
    One way you would be able to view it, or anything else available in only parts of the world as far as I know, would be to download the Tor browser which would scramble your location.

    I think that it is not at all deadly in nature, or that is not any more so than fire or acid, etc., is a crucial step in the game, no doubt. But what is revealing, which I believe comes after the 40 minute mark, is not that this is some strategic safety thing, but rather another money-making scheme by government and private-public partnerships to swindle the public, not for safety, for greed.
     
    Steve likes this.
  15. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,401
    Thanks for the links so far, although I can't view the second video because it is blocked by Channel 4! I wonder if that means it was a Channel 4 production which was either shown, or blocked by HMG? Your other link also failed when I tried to access the video. Could you make a summary of the contents?

    Galen Winsor does GOOGLE, but he doesn't have a page on Wiki - which I guess you could take either way. He does sound fairly plausible, but as Steve says, he doesn't say anything about nuclear weapons, except perhaps in the early discussion about criticallity, where he seems to imply that all you get is a conventional explosion. He also talked briefly about the US shipping a load of nuclear material to Russia just after the war - could that be an invitation for them to join the hoax rather than expose it?

    It is noteworthy that Obama and Clinton also sold uranium to Russia - something that has been exposed fairly recently.

    I'd really like to separate this discussion from the podcast, so it might be good if you started a new thread in the "Why science is wrong about almost everything". I wish EthanT still posted here!

    David
     
  16. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    236
    Home Page:
    Again, it comes to what sort of 'proof' you are expecting, and I appreciate that you are open to a wider range than what the almighty Algorithms and/or Hollywood provide.

    I do wish I could give a real summary of what Dubay has compiled, but the majority of it is video and from the mainstream media sources. It's clear what's being presented is how/why the official narratives are impossible, not from a scientific viewpoint only, but from the viewpoint of those who are video professionals. I am not an expert in anything!

    But what It demonstrates was that the photos and very brief vid we are given of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are highly controlled and highly edited. It breaks apart edited video in a way only a professional can see, and one for which half a decade of sophistication has informed, and I am not a professional. What do you think you saw, and why? Who do you believe, and why?

    I remember a quote from a famous writer who I admired and whose exceptional work was marginalized in the U.S, though not in Europe at the time:

    "J'ai tous vu" (I saw everything)

    "Tu n'as rien vu, a Hiroshima" (You saw nothing)

    Hiroshima, Mon Amour by Marguerite Dumas

    I'm not trying to be cryptic or pretend I know anything at all, I have doubts about the official stories, because I am a one who has always studied stories.

    What is magic, but getting another to be absorbed in YOUR story?!
     
  17. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,401
    I was able to watch the first video by using the free proxy site at proxysite.com

    I think the first video connects with the idea that the moon landings never happened in an interesting way. The main reason people say they could never have happened is the dose of radiation that the astronauts would have received as they flew through the Van Allen radiation belts to the moon. Now if the radiation is a lot less damaging than claimed, this might not have been a problem. The official reluctance to discuss this might not be that the landings were faked, but because of the radiation issue!

    I am working my way through the other video, which is nearly three hours long.

    Observations so far:

    1) The footage of houses and other things being blown away, while the camera does not move, is certainly intriguing. Remember that even if the images were being transmitted out by wire (I am not sure if that was possible in 1945), the video should end as soon as the blast hits the object being viewed!

    2) The comparison with the video of a the MOAB bomb exploding was interesting.

    3) If in fact comparison bombs fuelled by conventional explosives were used, there is clearly the possibility that this was used to cover up fake explosions.

    4) I had heard of that metal container that was placed around the first bomb, and then removed because it was thought this would scatter radioactive metal all over the state if the bomb went off.

    5) Is it possible that nuclear testing was stopped precisely because it might be hard to maintain the fake with better qualitiy cameras etc.

    6) On the other hand, I do know that some radioisotopes in the atmosphere are supposed to be gradually decaying after the last open air testing ended.

    7) I note again that, quite remarkably, Steve's first video - presumably one of the standard stock of such videos - was obviously doctored in some way or fabricated because the sound of the blast was roughly coincident with the explosion, and even if the camera was just one mile away, it would take 5 seconds for the sound to reach it!

    I'll add to this list after I have watched the rest of the video.

    8) Unfortunately the rest of that video didn't seem to offer any more specific evidence, it just showed blast after blast with the message, "another fake test". Honestly I don't know.

    There seem to be two distinct questions here.:

    1) Is the danger of radioactive material exaggerated? This seems at least fairly plausible.

    2) Are nuclear weapons impossible? This is such an attractive idea that it is painful to reject it entirely. However, even Galen described small scale critical events when two lumps of plutonium were accidentally brought too close together. We have to imagine that these pieces were forced together using conventional explosives - the way a nuclear bomb is supposed to work. Clearly something would happen, but the whole structure would disintegrate a very short time later, so whether enough fission reaction could have taken place by then, is hard to decide.

    I'd really like to find some technical discussion about whether it is seriously possible that nuclear explosions, including hydrogen bombs, are simply not possible. There were brief clips of scientists discussing this point, but nothing in depth.

    David
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2018
    Mishelle likes this.
  18. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    236
    Home Page:
    David, well done! The final hour is just the same chemist from the previous vid.

    Here's some reading that might fill in some gaps, at least he does have references to check too, it seems.
    http://mileswmathis.com/trinity.pdf

    And a site, just looking at it now so not sure how good it is yet, but interesting so far:
    http://coconutrevival.com/?p=3611
     
    David Bailey likes this.
  19. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,480
    You’re quite right, of course, the video I posted’s audio and visual aspects are not in synch. However, I don’t think there’s any serious attempt to fool anyone, more a matter of getting a number of different explosions into the video without waiting the correct length of time for the noise which accompanied the visual picture. I think it’s more to do with peoples boredom threshold than making an attempt to fool the public.

    Most people would understand the physics of this without much problem once it was pointed out to them.

    More interesting to me is if you think it’s possible that the visuals are faked. They look real to me. Even given the technology we have today I think ‘they’ would struggle to fake such large explosions.

    The only bit of this that I do question, is the ‘deadliness’ of the raw materials like plutonium and uranium. But against that is the fate of those individuals that worked in the aftermath of Chernobyl or the sailors that ‘supposedly’ committed suicide when there was an incident on the reactor of a nuclear submarine, when they went into the lions den, each for a short time only. (Also Soviet if I remember correctly)

    This whole area could be full of deceptions for all I know, I’ve never been near a nuclear facility and basically am totally ignorant where this area is concerned. I rely wholly on at best second hand info, with the exception, perhaps, of the videos.
     
  20. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,401
    Well - I wouldn't be as bland as that - it must be at least say 20 secs out of synch - and it may have looked in synch to those who chose to publish it! You can't make that mistake accidentally!

    The part that is probably much more obscure, is related to the speed at which the explosion can spread within the fissile material, and the time that would be available before everything disintegrates in the blast. I expect much of that material is still secret - if only to prevent terrorists getting their hands on it - but potentially also to hide the fact that it doesn't work?

    Take a look at Mishelle's links above. The fascinating fact is that the photographs of Hiroshima after the bombing look almost identical to the aftermath of the fire bombing of Tokyo. In particular, there doesn't seem to be a crater at ground zero.

    Another interesting observation, is that a lot of the photography seems to lack scale and be fairly amateurish.

    Well if the scale was faked, could you definitely tell? Remember also that in the early days, this was an effort to end the war with Japan, you could consume a hell of a lot of TNT to achieve that! The mushroom shape is not exclusive to atomic weapons.

    I am not that keen personally on exploring conspiracy theories - but I'll bet this one has some legs.

    David
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2018

Share This Page