The dumbest Hoax-Conspiracy I’ve seen Yet! (Nuclear weapons not real?)
December 27th, 2009
|
Okay, so we’ve seen a lot of really stupid and downright crazy conspiracy theories in the past. Many have claimed the moon landings were a big hoax and others claim that the entire Cold War was staged by a secret underground group that actually ran both the US and Soviet Union. Given the huge amount of evidence to prove those events independently, it seems a bit far fetched.
But it looks like they’ve been beaten. There are at least a couple wackos out there who claim that nuclear weapons are a hoax. Yes, they say nuclear weapons just plain don’t exist and beyond that, nuclear fission is not real. Yes, that’s right. There no nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, the Manhattan project never created a viable weapon and all the thousands of tests conducted by the US, Soviet Union, China, France, the UK and others were just elaborate fakes – at least that’s what some actually believe.
Sure, nuclear weapons development involved thousands and people and their power has destroyed two Japanese cities and been witnessed by millions during testing. Indeed, some atmospheric tests have created a flash visible many miles away or sent mushroom clouds into the stratosphere, where they could be seen by anyone in Las Vegas. Tests in the Marshall islands, Nevada and the Soviet Union lit up Geiger counters all over the world, caused power failures in Hawaii, broken windows in Finland and could be felt as shaking miles from the event. Thousands of troops and technicians saw the events with their own eyes and hundreds of thousands more saw the distant clouds or a flash on the horizon.
The Nevada Test Site is full of craters, which you can even tour, if you want to. Bikini Atoll has massive holes where large weapons were tested and although most of the fallout has long since decayed away, you can still pick up a slight increase in radioactivity in the areas where weapons were tested, if you use the proper instruments.
Nuclear weapons work on very well understood physics. Their exstance sparked the development of ICBM’s and eventually lead to space flight. Their threat caused national governments to institute complex continuity of government plans, to hallow out mountains and to keep aircraft in flight and ready to assume command for decades on end. Facilities to produce plutonium, enrich uranium and fabricate components were constructed worldwide.
All of this a hoax? Well, some people actually think so. Since this provides a good opportunity to provide some information on the topic, lets see how their claims break down.
And another YouTube User with several videos claiming to be evidence of fakery of nuclear tests. (It’s like Deja Vu of the Apollo hoax theorists). Just search his account for “nuclear” to find the videos, which are too numerous to embed here.
And another uploader of similar videos.
And they even have some antisemitism thrown in!
Some Links:
Thread on the topic from (I kid you not) the Flat Earth Society Forums.
The topic on SciForums
Do Nuclear Weapon’s Exist? – Facebook Group
Do Nuclear Weapons Exist?” On AboveTopSeceret
Here are some of the questions from the Facebook group:
[1] Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki in fact bombed by Atom bombs; or were they simply fire- or carpet-bombed, perhaps by new explosives?
No. Other cities experienced similar levels of destruction due to fire bombing, but it could never be acomplished in one bombing mission with one aircraft. Tokyo experienced destruction comparable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but only after many nights of raids in which hundreds of B-29’s droped many thousands of tons of high explosive and incendiary bombs.
Much of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred in less than a second. However, a signifficant amount of the damage to the cities was caused by fires that raged after the initial explosion. The nuclear explosion reduced wooden structures to piles of tinder, the heat dried and scourched material and touched off fires.
[2] How come there are so few films of tests? If you’d spent $1000000000 on a ‘device’, you’d be sure the film didn’t jam!
Actually, there are a HUGE number of films of the tests. Most atmospheric tests had hundreds of cameras trained on them. These included color and black and white cameras, cameras mounted close to the blast, in armored housing, located far away with telephoto lenses, cameras in aircraft flying about the blasts and everywhere else you can think of. There were time-lapse cameras, high speed cameras and standard speed cameras. The United States alone has a massive collection of nuclear test films.
The images showing close-ups of the damage from the blast wave and which recorded the iconic images of houses being blown apart and jeeps being knocked over were located within the blast area, or close to it. They were mounted in heavily armored housings. Some of these cameras were placed on reinforced metal towers. This gave them a clear view above the dust and debris at ground level.
Despite the extreme efforts made to anchor the cameras to sturdy mounts and to provide for extremely durable armored housing, it was not uncommon for some movement to occur due to the blast wave. On occasion cameras were lost during the tests and their film could not be recovered. Each test cost many millions of dollars and therefore hundreds of cameras were used to assure that at least a few would survive and produce good quality footage. Of course, there were also many other sensors and scientific instruments used besides cameras.
Many hours are not avaliable for viewing on the internet. The most commonly seen footage is from the final versions of information documentary films on the projects. These films generally contain the best shots of a given nuclear experiment, but many hours of film exist that are not commonly seen because the footage is not especially noteworthy. Most is now declassified and copies can be obtained from the Department of Energy.
[3] In view of the supposed flash given by such weapons, how come ordinary cine cameras seem to have been used? An intense flash would burn the film
A variety of cameras and film types were used to film the tests. Some were modified commercially avaliable film cameras and others were purpose-built for the task. The extreme intensity of the flash posed a unique problem for the movie film of the day. The film had to be able to record both the period of time before and after the detonation, as well as the extremely bright portion of the detonation. To this end, several specialized films were developed that had multiple emulsion layers of varying sensitivity.
Another method used was to use multiple cameras to film each test. In the published version of films, the actual footage may be edited between several cameras. Some had high speed film and relatively large diaphragms to capture the aftermath of the blast, but because of this, most of the actual blast frames are overexposed by the flash. Other cameras were setup to record the brightest portion of the blast.
Even using these methods, it’s not uncommon for many historical films to contain several frames at the time of the blast which are over-exposed and show the flash as nothing but a completely white frame.
[4] Many or all of the films of supposed nuclear weapons show effects typcial of large explosions – for example large amounts of smoke, and continual fires. A nuclear explosion should be one flash (or two if you accept H bombs) – there should not be a prolonged red fireball
Not exactly. A nuclear explosion produces what is known as a “fireball” which is actually a massive ball of plasma. Nuclear explosions produce such intense heat that the gases around the explosion incandescent. This results in a visible glow that dissipates as the cloud expands and cools. The mushroom cloud is formed due to a combination of debris, dust and (often) water vapor. The nature of the mushroom cloud depends on the place of detonation. A bomb set off at sea will vaporize enormous amounts of water, but if set off in the desert, there will be very little. Air bursts don’t produce the same kind of debris cloud as ground bursts and may only leave a faint ring of nitrous oxides, ozone and material from the bomb itself.
Nuclear bombs also do produce a lot of fire. Depending on the size of the weapon, the flash of heat that accompanies the blast may be capable of igniting material even miles away from ground zero. Some of the fires may be extinguished by the blast wave, but generally the area is left well scorched. The area nearest the bomb is vaporized completely, but the process is not as simple as materials being converted to a gas. A more accurate description of the effects on organic matter might be to say that they are flash incinerated, with the heat burning them up almost instantaneously.
[5] Some of the films show the sun or clear evidence of fakery – for example cloud montages, filming from increasing altitudes to give the impression a fireball is rising, semicircular montages to suggest a mushroom cloud
It can be very difficult to get a good film sequence of a nuclear explosion in a single shot. The explosion starts off as a bright flash and then rapidly expands into a fireball and then a rising mushroom cloud. As the cloud rises, the motion begins to slow, with the cloud continuing to spread out, sometimes for hours. At ground level, the area around the blast begins to burn and a pressure wave spreads out from the center, kicking up dust and debris as it propagates outward. It may blow out fires that had burned in the area around the explosion, but will often leave embers that reignite as the pressure equalizes.
Exactly how the blast plays out depends on the altitude of the explosion, the type and size of the weapon, the terrain and other conditions. Some explosions produce a precursor wave. High altitude blasts generally produce one powerful wave, while near-ground blasts may produce a more complex pattern of pressure. In some cases, an initial blast wave moves out from the explosion, but is followed by a drop in pressure, caused by the updrafts of the mushroom cloud.
Because of this, most films of a nuclear test are actually from several cameras, cut together to show the various phases. If you want to get the raw camera footage from US tests, you can do so from the Department of Energy. Depending on the circumstances, you may end up paying a nominal fee for the archival service. If the film is not well known, it is possible it has not been digitized. If that is the case, be prepared to pay a bit more to have the original film located and scanned for you. The DOE has done a very good job of keeping nearly all the film preserved in climate-controlled vaults, so almost none of it is lost, unlike some other agencies (cough cough.. NASA).
If you are looking for test footage from British, French, Chinese or Soviet Tests, I really have no idea where you would go for that.
[6] Granted that U235 or other elements generate heat, is it possible in fact for the heat to be harnessed more or less instantly, as required by a weapon? Wouldn’t it be impossible to enclose the superheated metal or other material?
No. Absolutely not. Radioactive materials do generate heat from decay, but U-235 heat is negligible. If you held uranium-235 in your hand, it would not even feel slightly warm. It does not produce even enough heat to make it signifficantly warmer than its surroundings.
Some materials, like plutonium-238 produce enough decay heat to be a viable source of power for radio-thermal generators. However, decay heat is nowhere near enough to produce any kind of explosive.
It’s impossible to cause the material to suddenly become super-hot without fissioning it. If it were insulated enough, it would eventually build up some heat, but this would not be an effective way of making a weapon.
7] During WW2, it was found that explosives could be ‘enhanced’ by adding powdered aluminum. Incendiary bombs were invented. No doubt other discoveries were made – but remember that even polythene wasn’t produced then. There’s no doubt that TNT, dynamite and so on may have been rather obsolete, but it’s hard to know the state of explosives technology at the time, because, obviously, it was unpublished.
There were some developments made in chemical explosives, but there’s really only so much energy that you can pack into a chemical explosive. Dynamite is largely obsolete, these days, but TNT remains an important explosive for both military and a few civilian applications.
The explosives of today are largely the same as those of the Second World War and even before. There have been refinements in the design of ordinance and their delivery methods, but the basic compounds used to make explosives are over one hundred years old. Most military ordnance do not contain a single explosive compound, but rather are a mixture of high explosives, stabilizing and binding agents. The type of explosive compounds and the ratio will determine the total power as well as the explosive velocity, heat and other aspects of the explosion.
Current military explosives include TNT (still a major explosive the benchmark to which other explosives are measured) as well as very high power explosives like RDX, PETN and HMX. Military-grade explosive compositions such as C4 and Comp-B use these materials and other minor components in various radios. Another explosive, which existed during World War II, but has since gained greater use is ANFO. ANFO, which is ammonium nitrate and fuel oil is widely used in mining and civil engineering because it is inexpensive and is safe to transport and store, as the two components are not explosive until mixed. It is used in some military applications, such as blowing up ammunition dumps or other demolition applications, but is not a major combat explosive.
Even the highest energy military-grade chemical explosives are orders of magnitude less powerful than a small nuclear weapon. A one kilot0n nuclear weapon produces an explosive force roughly equivalent to one thousand tons of TNT. Even the most powerful, energy dense compositions of chemical explosives are only 1.5 times as powerful as an equivalent amount of TNT and the most powerful chemical reactions known to exist (such as reacting lithium with fluoride) are only a few times as powerful as TNT.
The most powerful chemical explosive known to exist is octanitrocubane. It has thus far, only been synthesized in tiny amounts. It has an energy density slightly less than twice that of TNT.
Therefore, simulating the blast of a five kiloton bomb would require five thousand tons of TNT. If the highest energy explosives known were used, it would still require around three thousand tons.
[8] Because of wartime censorship, the effects of firestorms weren’t widely known. David Irving’s book on Dresden wasn’t published until about twenty years after then end of the war. (To this day many Americans dn’t seem to understand that bombing causes damage). Because of this, it would be relatively easy to pretend an atom bomb existed.
The damage from firestorms was well known. Both man made incendiary bombing and disastrous city-wide fires had been well documented. It was not difficult to realize that cities that were largely built of wood would be leveled by fire. The firebombing campaigns in Europe and Japan could not have been hidden from the thousands of airmen who participated in them or from the hundreds of thousand of foot soldiers who would later occupy these areas, nor could they be from the surviving residents.
Cities had been all but leveled by the Boston Fire of 1872, the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 and the 1906 San Fransisco Earth Quake and Fire.
And you can mock the intellect of Americans all you want, but even the worst of us do know that bombing causes damage. We’re not * THAT* stupid.
[9] Underwater nuclear explosions should have a visible very short flash of light – seawater is murky, but still clear enough to allow intense light through.
They do. It’s certainly not as dramatic as an atmospheric test, but they do produce a flash.
[10] ‘Radiation damage’ could simply be the effect of burns caused by bombing – especially as these would have been almost nknown to medical science at that time.
Burns and other injuries were well known at the time. The thing that was unique about the burns from a nuclear explosion is that many were caused by intense thermal radiation, even leaving behind shadows of items which had blocked the flash of heat. Injuries due to ionizing radiation have generally been overstated. Most of the victims of the bombs were killed by heat, falling debris or overpressure. There were some deaths after the fact, most were due to infection or other problems relating to burns and injury. A few may be attributable to illness caused by ionizing radiation. This was not unknown to medical science at the time, as there had been deaths from radium poisoning or over-exposure to x-rays.
Regardless of the medical care and the situation for the victims, it was immediately clear that this bombing was not the same as previous raids. The weapon caused mass destruction instantaneously.
[11] The ‘experts’ themselves may not have been aware of what was happening. Imagine a technologist trying to tell Stalin he didn’t believe the ‘west’ had atom bombs. And try imagining a technologist trying to tell Oppenheimer an experiment had failed. In each case there must have been powerful motives for deception.
Nobody would have had to tell Oppenheimer that the test at Trinity had failed, because he was there to see it with his own eyes. In fact, there was a real concern that it would fail, and Oppenheimer and others were more worried of this than anything else. The physicists of the time were very confident in the theory behind a fission-based bomb, but the device itself relied on a complex system of multi-point detonators to create a symmetrical implosion. The system had failed before in testing and the researchers knew that the reaction might not occur if there was even a slight imperfection in the implosion system. The first nuclear bomb was developed in haste and was literally held together with masking tape. There was plenty of opportunity for a short or a broken circuit. So fairly was not beyond the realm of possibility.
As for Stalin, he would have been quite pleased to know that the weapon had failed. His network of spies had kept him informed of the progress of the program and that a test was eminent, but he did not receive confirmation of the test until Harry Truman personally informed Stalin that “a new weapon of unusual destructive force.” Stalin was not surprised by this revelation and he already knew far more than Truman could have imagined. For Stalin, the statement was simply a confirmation of the success of the US test, which he had already been expecting.
And more idiocy, apparently from the same person on another site:
Item 1) The historical seismograms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have mysteriously vanished. If not only for the sake of war-era memorabilia, that information should have been everywhere in the museums and in the press. Hiroshima is located in a highly volcanic zone called the Honshu Arc and those active volcanoes were under constant seismographic surveillance during that period and log before that. The so-called atomic blast at hiroshima was estimated to be the equivalent of 6.2 on the Richter Scale but no seismological outpost in the world appears to have noted it. The Russians said they exploded the biggest atomic bomb ever made (50 megatons) at Novaya Zemlya in northern Russia. That is hundreds of thousands of times more powerful than what they say exploded over Hiroshima yet again, not one seismic needle moved at all. How is that possible I ask?
Except the data didn’t vanish! The blasts over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fairly small and were at an altitude where little of the energy was coupled to the ground, but they were still powerful enough to be detected by a few seismic stations (although remember, most of Japan was in shambles, so there wouldn’t have been a very good seismic network in Japan).
The seismic wave from the Tsar Bomba moved needles all over the world. It was even detected on it’s third pass around the world! Despite being an air burst, it was detected as one of the strongest single point events ever measured by the US Geological survey.
Item 12) Iraq, why did they not find so-called atom bombs there?
Because Iraq didn’t have any. Saddam’s nuclear program never got very far, as the only nuclear facility of any significance was destroyed by the Israelis in 1981. Iraq focused on the much cheaper production of chemical weapons, although by the time of the 2003 invasion few were left in the country.
tem13) Suicide bombers, since when can’t the underworld aquire atom bombs for suicide missions if they are not bogus?
They’re not exactly easy to come by. Only a handful of countries have them at all and they’re generally guarded and controlled very tightly. Most are pretty large and heavy and although it is possible to build small, man-portable nuclear weapons, those have long been phased out of stockpiles.
Even if a terrorist organization could get it’s hands on a long-forgotten warhead from a source in the former Soviet Union, it’s unlikely that the weapon would even be capable of detonation. Nuclear weapons require a lot of maintenance. Proprietary and specialized batteries need to be replaced, the explosive triggers degrade with time and tritium reservoirs and neutron sources need to be replaced at regular intervals due to radioactive decay.
Building a nuclear weapon requires highly enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonium. Although producing these is not an impossibly difficult task for most nation states, it is something no terrorist group could come even close to doing.
Item 20) The so-called nuclear subs are either fully battery operated and recharged underwater secretly or run with Stirling Cycle engines or more likely both. That would explain the absence of deisel fumes and would explain the very long underwater periods. Stirling cycle engines are perfectly suited to hoax a nuclear navy. Who can deny that?
Sure, you can run a submarine on a stirling engine. It’s been done before. There’s just one problem with this idea: stirling engines, just like steam turbine engines, are thermal engines, meaning that they need a source of heat to operate. This could be done with thermal mass that is preheated before the submarine departs – except this would only last a short period of time before the energy is depleted. It could also be done by burning a conventional fuel, except this would only last as long as the fuel supply lasts, and if under water, as long as the oxygen supply could last. At best, this could last a few days.
There is one source of power that could keep a sterling engine going for months or years on end – a nuclear reactor. Just as nuclear submarines currently use steam turbines, they could also, at least in theory, use any thermal engine, powered by the reactor. In fact, a nuclear-sterling engine submarine design has been proposed but was canceled before ever going to sea.
Regardless of the engine used, the energy to power it needs to come from somewhere!
By the way: I have been asked before if I “like” nuclear weapons. My response to this is complex. I don’t like the idea of anything being used to destroy whole cities and kill their citizens. I don’t like the idea of any device which is primarily used to cause harm, death or destruction.
However, a nuclear explosive is, by far, the most energetic device that mankind can create. The power is nearly limitless and the fact that it is an explosion is simply an inherent effect of what happens when such vast energy is released. Nuclear weapons rival even the most powerful natural forces in impact and can be scaled to produce energy that is significant even on a cosmic level (the RD-220 “Tsar Bomba”) produced 2% of the energy of the sun for a period of a few microseconds.
The effects of a nuclear weapon are vast, and though generally viewed as destructive could potentially accelerate spacecraft to a significant fraction of the speed of light. They could alter the orbits of huge asteroids, create their own weather systems, move mountains or create massive caverns in a fraction of a second. Personally, I find them to be both scientifically and technically magnificent devices.
This entry was posted on Sunday, December 27th, 2009 at 3:46 am and is filed under Bad Science, Conspiracy Theories, History, Just LAME, Not Even Wrong, Obfuscation, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
December 28th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Watching the first video I find myself asking “Is this person borderline retarded?”
Quote Comment
December 28th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Magic Donuts said:
Borderline retarded? The person who made this was not borderline retarded. They’re actually very very seriously retarded.
Really, it’s amazing how idiotic this is. Most of the questions and allegations would be answered if they bothered doing even basic research. Like the trees being placed there, it is clearly shown in the old videos of the tests being setup and so are the cameras. Did they even bother seeking these films? If they did they’d realize that the whole idea that there are not many films of the tests is also complete bull**** because archive.org alone has dozens of films and those are just the ones that are digitized and online
Quote Comment
December 28th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Sounds like the ‘Jesus Factor’ recycled from the 1970’s. See link for novel whose premise was that Nuclear bombs could not detonate if in motion in a gravity well.
Link;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Factor_(novel)
Quote Comment
December 28th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Yeah, it’s so dumb it’s almost enough to put me in a coma.
By the way, I totally agree on nuclear weapons. Yes, the idea of using them against humans is horrifying but their sheer power and the fact that they are harnessing the power of stars and producing the biggest single event that any human can is worth appreciating in its own right. I like them because I just like big explosions. They are like big fireworks.
Quote Comment
December 28th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Engineering Edgar said:
Oh I LOVE explosions. God do I love them. Why is it that women always roll their eyes at a man’s enthusiasm for blowing things up? My dreams is to someday find a woman who loves blowing crap up as much as I do. You understand, right? I mean, every guy does. It’s like something that testosterone does to you, it makes you love explosions and not even be able to explain why!
Quote Comment
December 28th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Well beyond stupid – however it does show what runaway skepticism can become, if it is not tempered by reason and knowledge.
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Wait wait wait…
If, according to this Kiwi guy, you can only detonate a nuclear weapon twice a year, how the hell did they bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki so close together?! Not to mention all the other tests where more than one weapon were detonated.
I am now stupider for having watching this video.
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2009 at 2:26 am
So is it fusion or fission that is the hoax? Honestly tell me because I just can’t read that much stupid.
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2009 at 4:29 am
Chris Brown said:
I’d assume fission, because without fission isn’t fusion a no-go? As I have come to understand it, an H-bomb still needs a fission bomb to get the fusion going. I guess it could be both, though.
Curtains said:
Well according to some, they didn’t. They just used firebombs or something. Yeah, I know – doesn’t make much sense.
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2009 at 8:21 am
One small correction:
“Other cities experienced similar levels of destruction due to fire bombing, but it could never be acomplished in one bombing mission with one aircraft.”
Actually, the missions were flown with three aircraft, one with the bomb, the other two as an escort and observer. I don’t know why the myth of the lone aircraft is so wide spread, but I blame Hollywood.
Either way, it does not in any way change the fundamental logic of the statement. Three aircraft with conventional payloads would not be able to cause that damage either, unless the entire city was pre-rigged with massive amounts of explosives, and I doubt anyone is stupid enough to claim that.
From wikipedia:
“The Enola Gay was accompanied by two other B-29s, Necessary Evil which was used as a camera plane to photograph the explosion and effects of the bomb and carry scientific observers, and The Great Artiste which was the blast measurement instrumentation aircraft.”
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
If this is a hoax i would like to know how they did it. And what happened to the USS Saratoga, The USS Pennsylvania, The USS Nevada, IJN Nagato, The Prinz Eugen and a bunch of other ships. Or how they made this movie:
http://www.archive.org/details/AtomBomb1946
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I think referring to this as stupidity is not useful. What we have here is a psychological disorder that is irrelevant to intelligence. This is a pathological case of the confirmation bias, where these people can’t even process information that disagrees with their worldview.
I think it might be useful to read the Wikipedia article on confirmation bias. I read the article and realized that almost everyone, including myself, suffer from some form of confirmation bias. Most people will preferentially select sources of information that generally confirm their prejudices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Referring to such activities as “runaway skepticism” is also inaccurate. A proper skeptic will react critically to extraordinary claims even when there claims tend to support their worldview. What we have here is someone who discounts all information that disagrees with their worldview and accepts uncritically all information that confirms it.
On an unrelated topic, I came across a website that might be useful. It is called the skeptic’s dictionary.
http://www.skepdic.com/
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
jcarlton said:
Uh, I think that the person in the first video would contend that the tests involved a combination of fake photography and tricks (as this person also seems to think the same of the moon landings) and that there were some real explosions but that a 20 kiloton bomb blast was actually either 20,000 tons of TNT or about 28,000 tons of ANFO or about 15,000 tons of HMX or RDX. Either that, or the person also contends that some new chemical explosive was invented during WWII and has been kept from the public.
I think their argument comes down to the belief that all the nuclear tests were just enormous chemical bombs or faked entirely. It doesn’t make much sense, of course. Especially considering how much freakin bulk there is to that much explosive. When the did do “Simulated nuclear explosions” with ANFO or something, 4,800 tons of the stuff is a HELL OF A LOT. It took many months to just accumulate a pile that big, with the explosive delivered by hundreds of trucks and rail cars.
Magic Donuts said:
What do you think made me want to go for a chemistry major
I know someone is going to say that nuclear physics is the way to go if you want REALLY BIG EXPLOSIONS, but nuclear detonations don’t happen very often these days. If you go into nuclear weapons design, you don’t actually get to set them off very often. Also, nuclear explosions are a bit big for backyard fun.
The day a chemist loses their deep love of explosions, they should go find another career.
jcarlton said:
Kari Byron? Oh wait, she’s taken.
Curtains said:
Uh.. well according to the first guy and some of the pages listed, they didn’t blow them up at all. Maybe it’s the kind of thing where it can be done twice a year but it doesn’t matter how it’s distributed?
Or maybe it’s like vacation time at a lot of places? Like, you could forgo it for a year and then the next year you could carry it over. So if you don’t set off any bombs one year you could set off four the next year?
Troberg said:
That strikes me as a hyper-technicality. It could be argued either way. Three planes flew the mission, but only one plane was the actual bomber and only that plane was really “necessary” to do the job. The others were just there to observe, and didn’t actually need to deliver the bomb.
I guess if you play devils advocate, you could say that there could have been three bomber aircraft. Still not enough to firebomb a city down to ashes.
One other thing: It would be interesting to try to calculate how many people observed a nuclear detonation personally. You have to figure everyone in the outskirts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who survived for one. Then the Russians shot some really big ones off in the north that could be seen and even felt from Finland or maybe even further. Then there are the ones in Nevada. Everyone in Las Vegas could see some of the clouds. The flash of the test could be seen as far as Utah. Then everyone in Hawaii could see the high altitude tests.
That does not even include the soldiers, technicians, support personnel and everyone else who was involved in the tests. That has got to be tens of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands more Soviets. Not to even mention the thousands of others: French, British, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani.
There have got to be millions who observed a detonation in one way or another.
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Joel Upchurch said:
The above (and the rest of your post) is a very valid point. I wonder though why this sort of chronic confirmation bias seems to be coming to the fore now, and why it is by in large driven by Americans against themselves. I may be wrong, or not looking in the right places, but I see very little of this sort of reconstruction of history being attempted in other countries by their nationals.
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Joel Upchurch said:
Point taken, but psycological disorders and confirmation bias are not mutually exclusive to just not being very bright. I’ve seen some conspiracy theories and wacky beliefs that are at least creative, well written and show some sign of intelligence. You can be smart and still be crazy.
Just watch the first video and listen to the commentary and then read some of the talking points and the logic behind them. This is not just crazy, it is also clearly the work of someone who is simply not that bright.
DV82XL said:
I can see many reasons for this. One is that Americans have a long tradition of not trusting the government and being critical of elitism, powerful groups and so on. It can get out of hand. Even the founding fathers established a kind of distrust of the nobility and the high social classes. They rebelled against royalty and rejected state-sanctioned elitism. This could be a foundation of the belief that the world is run by evil groups constantly trying to trick you.
What else? A kind of self loathing that seems to come from the radical left since the 1970’s. There is a pervasive belief, similar to what the Green Party seems to put out there that consumerism is bad, capitalism is bad, economic liberty is bad, commerce is bad, lack of complete social control is bad, corporations are bad and anyone who is male white and straight is one of the worst people in the world.
If this is what you believe, who gets your flack? The US is the big target that is the most obvious to aim for. You can blame all the world’s problems on the United States. Who else can you blame them on? Luxembourg? New Zealand? No. But it’s internal too. There’s a self-hatred that comes from the anti-capitalist forces of the world and it tends to be directed inward since it’s a society that came to such great success because of its freedom of economics and trade.
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
DV82XL said:
Yeah, seems to be mostly American, but not exclusively. I knew someone from France and was very against his country’s government because he believed that his government conspired to kill off all the unhealthy people by tainting the blood supply with HIV in the 80’s and 90’s. So it’s not just Americans who think their government is full of **** and goes against its own people.
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
The Big Cheese said:
Uh… that’s understandable because that actually *did* happen. It was generally hemophiliacs who were infected with HIV and most ended up dying given that many were in frail health to begin with. In the early 1980’s it was recognized that hemophilia products and transfusions ran the risk of HIV transfer, and a combination of testing and sterilization by heat or irradiation was implemented.
There were circumstances where some seemed to have known the dangers of continuing to use untested or unsterilized supplies. This was not exclusive to France. It was alleged that several American companies along with the health ministry of Japan and some other countries were negligent in implementing the safety programs.
However, it was especially bad in France, where it was alleged that it was purposely done to kill off the hemophiliacs. Whether or not that’s true, I don’t know, but the former Prime Minister of France actually went to trial over the matter, so it’s clear that it ran to the very highest levels of government.
But like I said, this was not exclusively to France. But yeah… it was pretty bad as far as scandals go.
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
DV82XL said:
No mystery about that. Before the Internet, you would only be exposed to such people if you encountered them personally or read their mimeographed leaflets on the bulletin board at the student coop. Nowadays we live in a virtual Hyde Park and everybody has a soap box. OTOH, everyone can control the information they are exposed to if the chose and it makes it easier to exclude other viewpoints if they choose to.
I don’t necessarily agree that the US has a worse problem than most countries with the political debate rewriting history. Look at how 9-11 is presented in some other countries, the holocaust, the rape of Nanking, Rwanda, Kashmir etc. Of course a lot of this isn’t happening in English, so it’s invisible to us. Although Americans tend to pump up the volume on our political debates, but I still prefer our situation to the Islamic and ethnic separatist issues some European countries are dealing with.
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Joel Upchurch said:
Well I was thinking more of the lunatic fringe asserting things like H-bombs don’t exist and such, rather than the usual rewriting of history done for propaganda. That I agree is universal, however the nut squad deniers of well known events seems to be largely an American phenomenon.
Quote Comment
December 30th, 2009 at 2:02 am
Damn. The logic of this is so.. crazy? Stupid? I don’t even know. I love the Sterling engine quote. Yeah, this guy has no idea how basic physics works “Or just charge their batteries underwater” yeah..
Several of my family members were in the service. A couple went to Japan after the surrender and took photos of Nagasaki and other places. The nuclear bombs were different than the firebombing. Both were near total destruction, but strange crap happened from the nukes, because of how fast and intense it was. There were places where there were walls and there were trees or signs or something that got burned or vaporized, but the heat flash left a perfect shadow of them on the wall, where it blocked the sudden rush of heat. Even freakier is there were places where people were and their perfect silhouette was left behind.
Another thing that is weird is the trees were all blown down and scorched in a pattern facing the center of the explosion. Then you could go there and in the dead center, there would be a few trees still standing. Their branches and bank were all stripped bare and the side had burn marks, but they were standing up in the middle of complete blown over trees in circles around them.
So even if fire bombs would also reduce a city to almost nothing, I don’t think you could ever get those very strange kind of effects like that.
Quote Comment
January 4th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
I stood on the edge of the Sedan Project crater at the Nevada Test Site – a MOST impressive hole (1280 ft diam, 320 ft deep) created with a 100 kt, 70%fusion/30% fission bomb buried at a depth of 635 ft. While there, we walked around and did radiological emergency exercises in a number of areas where atmospheric and underground tests had been conducted. There is measurable (relatively low) fall-out radiation in a few places, but for the most part, you can pretty well walk around without getting anything other than normal background radiation. Besides some left over debris, such as the top of an aircraft carrier and a couple of badly twisted overpasses (I-beam steel), I was amazed at how finely pulverized the soil was. I’ve been in a lot of desert areas and never seen soil like it. The hills changed color in some places. There is no way convential explosives can cause the effects that remain at the Nevada Test Site.
Personally I think folks that come up with these kinds of conspiracy claims are either looney or seeking their fifteen minutes of fame. If the latter, shame on them.
Quote Comment
January 4th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
leg said:
Thanks for stopping by and giving your usual insight. (and happy new year by the way.)
I’m not at all surprised that the areas around the tests from the 1950’s are now either at background or close to it for overall radiation. However, even if the levels are not any higher than what you might find due to natural radiation sources in the soil, I’m sure you could detect the fallout and leftover nucleotides at the test site and confirm it’s not natural if you had the right equipment.
A simple survey meter will, of course, only give you the total radiation, but if you had a sensitive detector and a precise enough spectrometer, I’d imagine you could still easily tell that there are amounts of fission byproducts and traces of transurics that are indicative of a weapon detonation and not just the natural uranium and thorium daughters you’d expect to find. After all, they were able to tell that the Garbon reactor was a full fledged nuclear reactor by the isotopic ratios even a billion years later.
We can detect these things to such minuscule levels, that detecting fallout from tests has been used as a means of verifying dates. For example, just about anything in the world that has not been encapsulated since the mid 1940’s or isolated from the enviornment contains a tiny but detectable traces of things like cs-137. A 100 year old bottle of wine has a trace of Cs-137 or even a tiny bit too much I-129, it’s a forgery and if a sample of a painting from bellow several brush strokes contains such radioisotopes, and if an unknown set of skeletal remains is found to be free of these isotopes then it’s not from a modern murder.
Really amazing that these can be detected to such tiny levels. I’m sure that the soil around NTS will, for centuries to come, be verifiable as being part of a nuclear test for many centuries to come, if they’re analyzed correctly.
Quote Comment
January 5th, 2010 at 4:05 am
leg said:
Well that’s just proof of the scale of the conspiracy! It must have been an enormous project to get all those backhoes and drag lines in there to dig that thing!
By the way, since I’ve never seen the hole, how do I know it’s not there? based on what you say, it sounds like you could be part of the conspiracy!
(this is all sarcasm, by the way)
Quote Comment
January 5th, 2010 at 4:15 am
Q said:
Unfortunately that is exactly how this will be answered by a good percentage of that crowd. Really, sometimes it makes one yearn for a return of the eugenics movement….
Quote Comment
January 6th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
personally- i find this `antibashing’ of the usa very interesting
why???
because as far as I am concerned – the usa doesnt exist
they dont build anything, they dont have anything to do with my day to day (or even year to year) life at all here in australia……
i would like a 57 caddy- but thats about the last thing they ever built i actually want…
looking around my house- nothing- not one thing… has built in usa on it
hmmm
me thinks they have a slightly `inflated’ view of how the rest of the world sees them….
Quote Comment
January 6th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
bop said:
What brand of computer do you use?
What’s your operating system?
What search engine do you regularly use?
What social networks do you like to use?
What television shows do you regularly watch?
What are some of your favorite movies?
If you should happen to go to an Australian airshow, what kind of military planes do you see?
When traveling do you ride exclusively on airbus?
Do you ever eat anything containing wheat?
Do you ever eat anything containing soybeans?
Do you ever eat anything containing corn?
Yeah, the US has shot itself in the foot quite a bit when it comes to industrial production. Not that this really has anything to do with it. It’s based on nuclear weapons and claims that the Jews, not the US lied and that the lie is pervasive to the US and Russia and elsewhere.
Quote Comment
January 6th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
bop said:
Be that as it may (and by the way, I disagree, because the US is the largest econemy in the world, and even if they don’t physically make many products, they still do control many of the organizations that do or are otherwise involved in the design and production) I’m not American by the way, although I’ve lived in the United States for a few years here and there.
I don’t see your point there though. I’m not offended by this because it’s US bashing. It’s fact bashing and I find that offensive. Things are what they are and if you say that they are something else then you’re either ignorant or a liar and both of these are bad things.
If you say that the US didn’t land a man on the moon, then you’re not just putting down the US but also telling a big fat lie and trying to reinvent history. You’re also supporting your big fat lie with other lies that go against science. That is wrong.
Look, I don’t think you need to make this a nationalism issue. It’s an issue of fact. What if someone went around saying the Soviet Union didn’t send a man into orbit? I wouldn’t have any more respect for them and believe me I have no affinity for the Soviet Union.
Here is a lie that is focused primarily on the US, but also on the Soviets, the British, the Indians and everyone else with nuclear weapons. It’s also a lie focused on physics and history, because it’s telling you physics is wrong and history is wrong too. Does that not bother you? You know, every country shares the same laws of physics.
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2010 at 9:40 pm
If calling atom bomb deniers retarded and stupid constituted a reasoned rebuttal I might think this website was anything more than a judaic cesspoole of demented tribal affiliates ready to believe anything to cash in on these shameless hoaxes. The truth is out and all the illicitly earned booty being used to pay shills and disinfo agents will never change that. Atom bombs dont exist, never have, never will. Nuclear reactors are nothing more than dump loads for the big utils to dump their excess electricity production to justify keeping rates soaring through the roof.
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2010 at 10:04 pm
alexis1111 said:
Well, anyone who actually thinks that they have somehow figured out that nuclear weapons and reactors do not exist is crazy or very very stupid or both, or at the very best, they’re just a very nutty and gullible type who has watched one too many poorly made conspiracy video.
However, you’ll notice that this page does not simply call them idiots (which they are), but also offers a complete refutation of every silly point made.
These stupid videos are not even researched in the slightest and this is repeatedly pointed out using documented facts. Everything from the trees placed on Frenshman flat to the complete lack of understanding of plasma and blast debris.
alexis1111 said:
You know, I keep hearing this but I still haven’t gotten any checks. What gives?
alexis1111 said:
And you base this on????????
Quote Comment
July 1st, 2010 at 10:30 pm
alexis1111 said:
Then what makes nuclear powered submarines go?
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 12:06 am
First video @ 6.37: “I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything…”.
That’s just as well.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 12:33 am
Chuck P. said:
If I remember correctly, alexis1111 has talked about nuclear power being a hoax, and a Jewish conspiracy in several internet forums.
As well this poster has said that the Apollo landing must be a hoax because radio waves cannot travel through the Van Allen belts and any electronics fries because of the radiation. When it was pointed out that many Geosynchronous satellites spend lots if not all the time in the belts. The response to this is Geosynchronous satellites are a hoax. In fact alexis1111 asserts no one has ever gone into space and came back. Claiming that those they sent up before Gagarin were all killed then Gagarin then stepped in and initiated the hoax when they loaded him on a high altitude aircraft and dumped his capsule from there like they did with all the capsules they say came back from outer space. No Hubble space telescope either. Space shuttle is launched empty and landed back on earth by remote control before it ever reaches high earth orbit.
There is more and other similar theories, but that gives you a taste. Basically everything anyone says is a lie, in the service of the Great Jewish Conspiracy.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 1:01 am
DV82XL said:
Presumably then the entire field of radio astronomy is likewise fraudulent. These damn Jewish conspirators sure do put a lot of effort into manufacturing these illusions. Those lying scumbags who pretended to lecture me in astrophysics at the Australian National University must have been part of this whole setup! And they seemed so nice. It just goes to show, you cant trust anyone these days!
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 1:06 am
There must be more people across the world now on the inside of this conspiracy than on the outside.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 1:50 am
Chuck P. said:
Unicorns and fairy dust. Duh.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 5:07 am
matthew said:
Funny, on the subs I served on, I don’t remember ever having to check the level in the Fairy Dust Tank.
I do however, remember crossing the Pacific Ocean underwater. If there’s another type powerplant that could accomplish that, I haven’t heard of it. I guess that makes me part of the conspiracy too.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Reading this webpage the reader saw a picture one shill put up and called a nuclear explosion seismogram. I saw it and what I saw was the seismogram of a TNT explosion. Try asking the shill to explain what distiguishes that so-called atomic exolosion from any garden-variety TNT explosion. Dont hold your breath for that explanation, lol.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Alexis1111 said:
Size, mostly. The smallest nuclear explosion ever done was measured in thousands of tonnes of TNT (thus the term “kiloton”).
If you look at seismographs of any other explosion, using any kind of explosive you like, they’ll all look similar – the difference to a seismograph is in scale, not kind. There is nothing magically different about a nuclear weapon’s shockwave as compares to a conventional explosive (you ought to know this, since how shockwaves work is high school level physics). That said, when it comes to explosions, size matters.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 2:53 pm
DrBuzz0,
Hate to rock your fragile convictions but this site has not provided the readers with a single logical rebuttal of my numerous claims on this subject matter. Nor have you for that matter. Now, having the limited knowledge you appear to possess on this subject I think it might be a tad premature on your part to start throwing around gratuitous colorations of my mental state without being in possession of all the information you need. Just the fact that you believe mushroom clouds grow from high altitude explosions demonstrates the fullest extent of your academic anemia. Makes you appear like the one with such an open mind his brains spilled out.
You asked me what makes me so certain. How can anything true have so many contradictions? My best evidence is the official story itself. Full of contradictions, the hallmark of a hoax.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Someone spoke of “antisemitism. Said my comments are antisemitic. Antisemitics are people jews hate, right? Well, I can understand some jews might be upset at me for throwing around evidence of their shameless multi-billion dollar ripoffs and general grifting. When have criminals ever been pleased when whistleblowers sound the horn on them? Also, many jews are happy to discover the BS fed to them by their own tribal affiliates that appeared to trust them but did not trust them enough to tell them the truth. Those jews are happy hear the truth that mankind cant destroy the earth. They might be a bit anxious, as I became at the idea that world war is once again a possibility. That was a hard pill to swallow considering our agony of war could be once again a long drawn out decade long nightmare and not the end of humanity in 5 minutes like the hoaxsters once said.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 3:30 pm
I accused you outright of being anti-Semitic, because you most certainly are. You are also an ignoramus who has absolutely no grasp of fundamental physics.
You are also struggling under the mistaken belief that it is incumbent on us to refute any hypothesis offered up. Beyond the logical impossibility of proving non-existence, convention dictates that the onus is on you to provide proof and solid evidence for your claims. You have not done so here, or anywhere else to anyone’s satisfaction.
I do not treat with trolls or those espousing mindless prejudice, and thus I will not be responding to you from this point on and I would hope that no one else does here.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Alexis1111 said:
you previously claimed:
alexis1111 said:
I pointed out nuclear powered submarines. They routinely disappear from US ports and occasionally appear in foreign ports, having transited the distance between tem submerged, at average speeds that would be unattainable with diesel propusion.
The existance of nuclear submarines refutes your claim that nuclear reactors are a hoax. You have provided no significant evidence to support your claims.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Alexis1111 said:
As Mathew says, size is the big thing that distinguishes them. A major nuclear explosion is orders of magnitude larger than the largest conventional explosions ever created by man. A fifty kiloton nuclear blast would be of nominally low yield, but would require a small mountain of TNT to simulate chemically. Thus, even if the signature is similar, the magnitude is not.
Determining the scale of energy released reliably is not possible from a single seismograph, and really, there’s limited data that you can really get from a single instrument in a single location. For gathering intelligence on nuclear tests it’s never a single seismic monitor but a worldwide network of seismographs. The magnitude at each one is recorded and very importantly, each instrument needs to be synchronized to very accurate time signals, because the timing of the arival of the termmor must be known with precision.
By knowing the time it arrived at various instruments it is possible to very accurately pinpoint the exact location that it came from. Things like seismic reflections and density of the crust need to be taken into account. That is why this kind of thing is computed by very smart people and very big computers.
Basically, if you know the distance and the dampening at each seismograph, you figure out the ground movement back at the point of the explosion and from that, you can tell the total energy.
There are some other things that can be measured. For example, while the seismographs probably look mostly the same to you (and admittedly to me too) to the trained eye and with analysis of different seismographs it is possible to determine other things, like if the test was underground, you don’t get just the explosion, but you get the tremor from the chamber it creates collapsing back down and you get small after-shocks from the fractured rock settling.
Another way to distinguish conventional explosions from nuclear is based on the explosive velocity. Again, it is a pretty complex thing that is not necessarily obvious when glancing at the seismograph, but a nuclear blast happens in a very very short period of time, but with a conventional explosion, the explosion starts at one point and propagates out to the edge of the pile of explosives.
It’s all very interesting stuff. You can read about the whole geophysics side of it, if you care to, and I doubt you do.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Chuck P.,
What powers the so-called nuclear navy you ask, battery arrays primarily backed up with upscaled Stiling cycle engines powerd by any number of fumeless fuels like rocket-grade hydrogen peroxide to feed the hot end of the Stirlings. Stirlings are very quiet, the pistons sliding in and out of the cylinders has been described as silky. The very slightest friction makes them very efficient. The exhaust from a hydrogen peroxide fuelled Stirling is water and oxygen. How can the crew detect that. Its quiet, odorless, and the ideal engine to simulate a nuclear navy.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 4:40 pm
DV82XL said:
That’s interesting. I’d love to hear an explanation for why I can point a dish at a spot in the sky and amazingly receive signals from these non-existent satellites. It’s not just me, by the way, but everybody in the world who has satellite television service, which is many millions.
I hope that Alexis1111 does not insult us by saying they come from some kind of high altitude aircraft or balloon. In addition to it being a a bit difficult to maintain continuous service that way, it’s perfectly easy to prove that the satellites are thousands of miles above the equator. You just look at the angle of the dish and location. In the Northern Hemisphere you move south the angle gets higher and higher until you’re at the equator, in which case the satellite is right above you or off slightly to your east or west. If you move north it gets shallower and shallower until as you get toward the poles the satellite is on the horizon. Of course, it’s the opposite in the Southern hemisphere from the north. From the perspective of a person in the northern hemisphere, they form an arc across the southern sky. It is very simple geometry to figure out the height based on the angle you set the dish at for a given latitude.
Please explain how this can be if there are no geostationary satellites!
alexis1111 said:
Excess electricity? if they had such an excess, why not just turn down the generators to make less?
Really, though, can we just get real for a minute?
The whole country of France has a handful of dams and a handful of reserve power plants powered by gas. Other than that, it’s all nuclear. The non-nukes they have could never ever produce enough power to keep that nation going and somehow they manage to produce enough electricity that they can even export it?
Just where the hell is all this French electricity coming from?
What about the other countries where nuclear power creates more than half of the energy or at least something close to it? Where’s all that electricity come from in Korea?
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Alexis1111 said:
HAH! You would need a HELL OF A LOT of fumeless fuel! God, listen to yourself! Yeah, I know all about sterling engines and they can be pretty darn efficient. Piston action depends on how well lubed and low friction it is.
god, you’re funny!!!!!
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 4:44 pm
drbuzz0:
The only thing Matthew needed to give himself the smallest shred of credibility would have been to post a picture of a seismogram recording a TNT explosion and another showing a proportionally similar so-called nuclear explosion beside it. The result would have been the same though, the seismograms would still lack the depth of detail and accompanying analysis and the reader would too easilt see through that. The sad truth is that the simplicity of the seismographic record put up as evidence betrays its dubious origins.
So, with regards to my claim that the historic seismograms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have gone AWOL stands unchallenged. To the poster that claims Japan was in a terrible state of disrepair and attributes this undeniable fact to the absence of seismographic records I ask you show me any kind of evidence or put for a logical circumstance that supports you implication that Japan had ceased monitoring the 5 active volcanoes located within the Honshu Arc where Hiroshima and Nagasaki are located on account of damage sustained in the course of the war. To my knowledge no such evidence exists. People find active volcanoes as devastating if not more so than swarms of M69-laden B-29s and would not let their guard down against either at any time. In other words if that equipment had been damaged the replacement would have been immediate for the previously mentioned reasons.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Gordon:
LEO is not outer space. By infering that geostationary can not be faked you are implying you know the exact number of LEO satellites up there. Considering that most experts dont even know how many have been launched coupled with the fact that failure rates at LEO are so frequent most lauches have replacement twin launched simultaneously. Now, factoring in the undisclosed and very numerous military satellite deployment you can hardly deny there are enough to create a vast networked switching grid configuration simulating the effect of a GEOstationary satellite. I believe the need for GEO stationary came before the deep space hoaxsters decided to use it for hoax maintenance purposes. So, George, how many LEO statellites up there? 5000…70000…do you know?
Please explain how winding down the turbine RPM is going to eliminate the need for a dump load? Even small home windmills need a dump load and they are revving way less than the James Bay hydro damn turbines I would say. See how odd your claim appears when viewed in that light?
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 5:08 pm
I’m guessing Crazy Al has never actually seen a LEO satellite transiting the night sky shortly after sunset. They move so swiftly that there is no way any conceivable fleet of them could mimic the position of a GEO satellite. Never mind that the conspirators would have to arrange this for every person on the face of the earth who owns a satellite dish. This whole thing just gets more bat**** crazy with every post he makes.
The idea that nuclear subs are actually powered by any kind of chemical fuel is just so idiotic it barely deserves comment. I’m sure Rod Adams would be suprised to learn that all that time he spent as chief engineer responsible for handling the reactor when on tour in the navy, he was really operating a Stirling engine.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Finrod:
You are standing at one point of a celestial triangulation with the sun and the orbitting object. A sattelite orbitting elliptically on an axis slightly removed from your vantage point will not appear brightly. Its the same principal as the one seen in the old cowboy movies where the person signals someone from the top of a very high ridge to a person far down below with a small square mirror. From the receiving end you will not sight the bright flash of the mirror’s reflection of the sun if you are not in a perfect triangulation. This is a reason I believe the vast majority of the LEO satellites are seldom seen.
Rod Adams was just as compartmentalized as his collegues and bound within national security protocols. Had he seen something fishy he is bound to silence or feel the full fury of a vindictive government. I’m sure the government can weave a treason sentence out of a simple national security breach if that amuses them. Just by virtue of the fact, which you should be aware already, your friend’s testimony means nothing because there simply exists no incentive for those highly paid workers to come out and sabotage their own means of earning a living. You know, get reasl, eh.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:38 pm
I have read testimonials of eyewitnesses to the so-called atomic bombing of Hiroshima and they swore they could see birds explode in mid-air when the bomb went off. I thought the blast of detonation was so bright as to cause permanent blindness in the eyes of those observing it. How can one see exploding birds with permanently damaged eyeballs?
When I examined the post-bombing photos one finds liberally exhibited in the museums and academia one easily notes the presence of the finely charred delicate extremities of the tops of the tree branches standing prominently everywhere after the so-called atom bomb of Hiroshima. The claim speaks of a massive shockwave yet the trees betray evidence of an shockless M-69 swarming attack. The streets free of debris, damage to underground pipes very light and mostly due to walls falling when their wooden support beams had burned through. A seismic portfolio of the historical moment would be very enlightening. Better still, both the tokyo firebombing seismic records side-by-side with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki seismic records. A recipe to set the hoaxsters diving for cover.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Chernobyl:
Dump loads are very much like kettles. Both convert energy to steam. Just like kettles they can explode too if the pressure exceeds the vessle’s capacity and a lot of physical damage can be inflicted on the building housing the kettle. Firmen can be severly burned by superhot steam. Electricity flows into the kettle (reactor) to be boiled off. The energy efficiency initiatives of the three previousd decades had really paid off so big that they created embarrassingly high amounts of excess that needed to be disposed of to keep the grids in balance. If the public demanded rate decreases because they saw these excesses boiling off in the horizon they might rebel. A solution was needed. The judaic mindset steps in and the dump load becomes a commercially viable nuclear energy plant at 5 billion dollars a pop. Not only are the human cattle oblivious to the fake reactors buy the disposal of the evidence is performed right under the noses of the mark. A judaic double-whammy might describe it best. Get the cow to pay billions to finance the con against him. Jews never pay when they dispose of their problems of evidence.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Alexis1111 said:
Using LEO satellites (many many many) of them you could simulate a single geostationary satellite by switching it on at the moment it came in direct alignment between the observer and the location of the geostationary satellite. You would need so many because the beam of a dish antenna is pretty narrow, so as soon as one left a tiny portion of the sky you’d need another to enter it. It would take hundreds possibly thousands.
One problem though – this would only work for one location. You would need a dedicated fleet of satellites for every portion of the earth to simulate this effect. Worse still, they’d have to have such narrow beams that the satellite signal would never be picked up by someone a few miles away who would have their own dedicated constellation of LEO satellites.
Oh… and they have to be absolutely invisible to the naked eye or to telescopes or radar, and their control and telemetry signals are invisible too. yep..
I don’t know how many functional satellites are launched by all the spacefaring countries of the world, but it sure as hell ain’t *that* many
It is utterly impossible. The sheer process of coordinating such enormous bandwidth over billions of satellites precludes it. Yes, you would likely need billions of them.
Alexis1111 said:
That’s not entirely true. The flash from a weapon detonation does not necessarily cause lasting damage. It will likely cause temporary damage but it would depend on the circumstances how bad it would be.
What they saw in such circumstances is hardly reliable anyway. The human memory and perception are especially bad when there is a big shocking event like that. You can look at accounts from the Kennedy Assassination for example. There were people who swore Kennedy stood up in the car and was hit. Others claimed that they head a single shot or seven or eight shots. Some people said they thought there was an explosion in the car with fire, like a grenade went off.
What happened is people suddenly were startled by an event that was very traumatic and which they were not able to perceive completely. They saw a bird, a flash, a fire, felt heat etc and this all happened in less than a second. Then you ask them years later to describe it. Don’t expect a very good report back.
Alexis1111 said:
There was very little ground shock wave and seismic profiles would be very limited. It was an airburt or a comparably small weapon. The term is “Decoupling” which means little of the shockwave traveled through the ground.
There was considerable damage from fire, even in areas outside the area where damage was caused primarily by the shock wave. Even on the outskirts of the city, the heat from the blast touched off thousands of fires. These areas would have been spared most of the damage from overpressure alone.
Alexis1111 said:
Sure, they may look the same. A pebble and a boulder look the same if you have no sense at all of scale or distance.
Alexis1111 said:
The M69 is a napalm-based incendiary cluster bomblet. It would burn a city, but not create the kind of destruction seen in a split second by a nuclear weapon.
I am not aware of any seismic data from Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but this is no surprise because an airburst like that won’t generally register on seismographs that are not both very sensitive and very close, and even then, the nature of the event means there won’t be much data.
If you want to see good seismic data look at tests conducted on the ground or underground. There is excellent data for those.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Alexis1111 said:
I live in Southern Connecticut, not far at all from General Dynamics Electric Boat and the Groten Submarine base. I see guys from the Silent Service all the time around the place. I have known more than a few people in the Navy on both nuclear subs and carriers. I used to live near Schenectady New York and in high school a whole bunch of my friend’s fathers worked at a little place called the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory.
Apparently a very very large number of people I personally know are part of the conspiracy and lying to me? I guess it must be what? About four billion in on it now?
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Alexis1111 said:
Not possible. What you’re talking about is a rudimentary form of air independent propulsion. High test peroxide was used in decades past in various experimental subs built by Germany, the UK and Russia. Due to the hazards and difficulties along with poor energy density, it was never used in an active combat sub. It provided a lot of power and speed, but limited range and energy. Today it is used only for a few Russian torpedoes. It works okay for that since long range is not an issue, they only cruise for a few minutes at high speed.
The energy stored in HTP is so poor it has been all but completely replaced from use in rocketry by better monopropellents like hydrazine.
Modern AIP does way better than peroxide by using fuel cells or sterling engines powered by burning diesel with liquid oxygen in a catalytic burner. This gives much much more energy per volume. For chemical propulsion under water, this is pretty much the way to go, but still it can’t compete with nuclear propulsion. Sweden and Germany have non-nuclear subs that can stay under for a good few days and travel hundreds of miles, but they’re nowhere near what a nuclear boat can do.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:45 pm
drbuzz0:
Maybe we should clear up a little misconception here. Your sattellite dish is not pointing at a pinpoint location in LEO. It is addressing a specific perimeter that can be very easily overlapped. Your dish is located at the widest point of this radiological funnel if I can use that expression.
You keep reminding me how a fleet of satellites would be required to impliment this sophisticated satellite switching network yet you still have not provided us with the number of satellites you believe are moving around up there. Isnt it a bit presumptious to arrive at some conclusion short of having considered this mortal absence of continuity in your claims?
The way the hoax story goes the bomb explodes and the visible spectrum from the visible to the x-rays preceeds the shockwave by a large margin. In other words the birds that would have been seen exploding could not have been seen exploding at the same time their eyes were being burned out. Simple logic that escapes you. Your loss not mine.
Re: your comments regarding the similarity between a so-called nuclear blast seismogram and a tnt seismic record, well, all I can say is, “keep working that script.”
You made a very bold statement when you said the M-69 cannot inflict the damage done at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any bonehead can go to the archives and examine the photos of post-bombing Tokyo and post bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and see as plainly as the noses on their faces that the damage signatures are pure M-69. The creator of the fuse mechanism of M-69 and coincidentally also the father of Html, Vannavar Bush, once wrote that the atom bomb did not make him lose sleep but the M-69 gave him nightmares. Something to that effect.
The blast at Hiroshima was estimated to be around a 6.3 on the Richter scale equivalency. What’s this about “too light to register on a seismogram.” Beware, you desperation is showing.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Alexis1111 said:
My view now reflects that of DV82XL. Ignore this pathetic, deluded neo-nazi wannabe. It can be amusing for a little while to play with a loony, but this nutbar’s racism and race hatred eliminates any amusement factor.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:57 pm
drbuzz0:
I am interested in hearing your best argument outining the reasons that compel you to believe billions need to be involved for it to work. From my point of view such massive scams run better on a “need to know” basis. Its plain logic. The industry is compartmentalized meaning Joe has no idea what Bill is doing and so on. They are bound by draconian national security protocols, the hoaxster’s paradise describes that hoax to -a-tee as they say. From my point of view heads of state dont even know the truth. They work better believing the hoax. Add bundles to the dramatics in arms limitations talks, lol.
I see you make another ludicrous claim that the energy in rocket-grade hydrogen peroxide is not enough to fuel the “hot” end of a Stirling engine. As the name implies: Rockets can lift off the ground with that fuel. So much for your “lame fuel” theorems. Next you must explain why you think the navy simulating nuclear with Stirlings feel any obligation to report this fact to you? You express yourself as if driven by this expectation in life.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Finrod:
Save your theatrics for those unfamiliar with the rabbinical interpretations of the torah. Try rebutting my claims intelligently instead of resorting to screaming “human cattle” as a form of distraction. I have nothing but pity for the jews so you can shove your insinuation of hatred where the sun dont shine, get-it? If the board admins here believe preserving the rights of the criminal jews over the rights of free speech than this conversation will soon be over.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Finrod:
You spoke of Nazis in your posts. Why do you think Hitler failed to invade and seize the treasures of Switzerand? Of course I would not insult your intelligence by asking this without believing we can both agree war is not some gentlemen’s sport with fancy rules it is in fact hell. That means formal diplomacy has failed and all niceties abandonned. Why do you think Hitler extended every political coutesy to Switzerland while savagely divesting every other country of her treasure?
I mean the Germans provided Switzerland with the coal that was essential to her survival. Hitler could have easily marched in after cutting off her lifeblood and seized the treasure. If Hitler hated jews so much my did he not attack that spiritual homeland of the jews, Switzerland. That is the reason I believe every leader of every nation honors her priviledged status. She is calm, well armed, peaceful, in the midst of some of Europes bloodiest episodes.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Alexis1111 said:
It is worth noting that the ‘human cattle’ remark was not mine, but in fact a quote from Crazy Al himself. I guess he must have forgotten that he’d just used it, and didn’t understand that I was quoting him. This guy is just too pathetic.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Given the general pattern of this paranoid idiot’s postings elsewhere he will continue to bombard this site with his nonsense continuously now that he thinks he has an audience, the only thing that can be done is to let him run out of steam until he goes away – arguing with him is pointless, as even when you do back him into a corner, he just changes stories and keeps on going as if nothing happened. He’s been barred on more webpages than penis extenders, and thrives on attention.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Alexis1111 said:
I do not know the exact number of satellites which are currently in operation. It would at least in part depend on how you define the question (some satellites are no longer in service but are still partially functional for example)
Best estimates are that there are about 8,000 independent manmade objects in earth orbit that are of a significant size. This, of course, does not count things like flecks of paint or other small debris and it does not count the pieces of a debris cluster individually.
Of these 8,000 objects somewhere between 550 and 600 are currently functional satellites.
Of course, this is approximate. It could be 630 or maybe even 680.
What you are describing would have to be ***Many orders of magnitude*** that means the real number is not twice or ten times this but more like ten thousand times. Not exactly likely.
Alexis1111 said:
Oh, the M-69 is very destructive, and Tokyo was destroyed to a level on par with Hiroshima. Nobody can deny that.
But… it took 14 independent air raids, each of them consisting of between 100 up to about 450 aircraft, each of the aircraft loaded to maximum capacity with incendiary weapons.
You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding this. A nuclear bomb does what it takes months of bombing in less than a second.
of course, while there are some similarities in the level of damage, they are not identical and there are many distinct aspects of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that are not seen in firebombing. these include obvious damage as a result of overpressure to some structures. The “standing trees” at ground zero effect, and the heat flash that caused objects to cast a sharp and distinct shadow of scorching on surfaces. This would not be seen from fire, which does not have as focused radiative heat. Of course, there is also the fallout that is easily detected and single plum that resulted from the primary blast.
Now if there were M-69’s used, why is it nobody reported seeing thousands of aircraft conducting the raids? And where is the debris of the M-69 bombs? for that matter, how come nobody ever digs one up in Hiroshima? In heavily bombed cities, there are always bombs that were duds and dfid not go off. It’s a huge problem. To this day unexploded bombs from the second world war found and need to be disposed of safely.
It’s amazing you could actually have no idea how many of these things it takes to burn a city. It’s not a few, it’s many thousands of tons of bombs and it takes some time.
And not a single aircraft shot down? Even by the end of the war, a raid with that many aircraft had little chance of 100% success without a single one getting hit by flack!
Alexis1111 said:
the richter scale has nothing to do with ground shaking. It’s a measure of total energy at the epicenter. Many (yourself inclued apparently) don’t understand the difference. You could have a massive release of energy with a high richter number and have it so decoupled from the ground it barely moves needles.
The richter scale is not a number you read off an instrument based on what it detects. You need multiple readings and work backward to determine the total energy.
Alexis1111 said:
Jesus. that is going in the book of stupid quotes. No, a rocket can’t reach orbit with HTP alone, not as a monofuel. it can use it as an oxidizer, but it needs so damn much it’s no longer used for that.
It’s a very lame fuel. it has enough piddly energy for a little attitude control on small satellites, but not enough to do much else.
The famous Bell “Rocket Belt” ran on the stuff. It was a simple and reasonably safe kind of rocket to use. It had enough kick to get the thing airborn, but its piddly energy density is why the thing only flew for 20-30 seconds.
Look, a rocket can use damn near anything as fuel if you have enough of it. HPT is a horrible fuel for energy storage.
You know what the energy density of hydrogen peroxide is? If it is 100% pure it’s 2.7 MJ/Kg. Since it’s usually lower due to the fact that it is not stable, most industrial hydrogen peroxide is < ~95% which is roughly 2.5 MJ/Kg.
That is NOTHING! It’s pitifully small.
Gasoline is about 45 MJ/Kg when burned in the atmosphere. Diesel is even higher.
A rocket can get off the ground with compressed air for fuel, but won’t go very far! Neither will it on HTP.
You are 100% wrong.
Alexis1111 said:
My god, you’re irritating. It’s not that anyone has the responsibility as much as the riduclous claim that such a massive program would be undertaken for no reason than to fool a few people left out of the conspiracy or that every single of them would not leak the information. It’s absurd that this would not just be kept from me, but that such a program could be kept from the word;
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:27 pm
DV82XL said:
I think it’s actually a her. “Alexis” sounds like a female name to me.
If so, then I guess this shows how women are really breaking into everything. You know, realy idiotic conspiracy theories like this have always been such a male dominated field. It just proves women can be as crazy when it comes to making up paranoid ravings!
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:03 pm
drbuzz0:
So, in your opinion 5000 orbiting satellites, many in line of sight LEO positions with respect to one another cannot be arranged in a configuation that simulates GEOstationary orbit? I need to hear your most compelling argument in support of that impossible idea. Especially the part where you claim that approximately 500 of the 8000 manmade objects in orbit around the earth are satellites after claiming you have no idea how many are up there. A bit contradictory if you ask me.
Also, are you claiming you observed 500+ satellite sun reflections per day on the horizon where you are located?
Assuming I made a claim that only 50 well positioned satellites are all that is required to simulate GEOstationary using a LEO trickery of highly synchronized propritary software configurations to meet domestic needs. I imagine rotating dishes were no party to maintain. Better to organize LEO birds to eliminate that chaos.
Btw, Japan endured on of the most complete, draconian, nation-wide censorship campaigns known to journalists worldwide. Approach all testimonials with great caution. Let reason prevail instead. McArthur had Japan all “zipped-up” if you will pardon the expression. At least 165 B-29 were required after the Tokyo area numbers were adjusted to the Hiroshima damage model. One half the bombers that raided Tokyo March 9-10 1945 in the evening of friday to saturday afternoon. Swarm after swarm dropping firesticks on the most flammable cities of the epoch. Firestorms are sure to ensue on very short notice.
The Richter estimates represent tremors arising from shockwaves. Elementary physics eludes you. A blast they say uprooted a big camphor tree in Hiroshima is not the burning of autumn leaves.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:13 pm
drbuzz0:
Usually when the best arguments coming from the affirmers are concerning the gender of the messenger instead of the substance that makes up the hoax debunk that means the bag of misdirections has finally bottomed-out, empty.
Now that the craniums here are a little less depleted maybe I should get back to my work and let you good folk sort this out or I dont mind chatting some more if a few quality questions start cropping up. Quality questions are those that leave one perplexe even after a reasonable effort at finding the truth of the matter failed to bear fruit. I like those questions that show the person has made a minimal effort at discovering how deep the rabbit hole really goes.
Thank you to my host that gratiously let me express myself and inform the readers. The world needs more like you.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Alexis1111 is male not female as implied by the depleted cranium contributor that cant help to jumping to conclusions without the slightest substantiation. Trying to prop the female uprising hoax on my back, lol. Have you no shame?
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Finrod said:
I’m with you Finrod. I’m done.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:33 pm
drbuzz0:
You claim that it is absurd that that hoaxes of that magnitude would be kept from you when in fact my online debunks at LF started in 2004 and that was when the world was informed that earth is a nuclear-free zone now. Just because you have no clue where to get quality information does not mean it was not out there right under your nose if you had put your preconceptions aside and your personal bias aside and explore this new reality with an open mind and a wideband curiosity. Not the type of curiosity hobbled by personal interests of a monetary nature or other. The world is growing aware of the atom bomb hoax cluster exponentially meaning the idea is getting around faster than a pandemic. They are having trouble kick-starting the Iran illusions of failed diplomacy because its very fioundation and justification is coming under serious scrutiny for the first time. People worldwide are becoming aware of these multi-billion dollar jew-driven rackets. The jews have the means, the motives, and the opportunity to pull off large scale robberies like those. Most jews know this also.
It’s absurd that this would not just be kept from me, but that such a program could be kept from the word;
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:44 pm
drbuzz0:
The running of the Stirling cycle engine is what will charge the battery banks that turn the screws. The Hydrogen peroxide is manufactured onboard the submarine and serves to feed the “hot” portion of the “hot-cold” thermal piston action. The air sealed inside the cylinders expands and contracts based on the thermal disparities at its extremities. The hydrogen peroxide is not turning the screws, it is feeding one of the most pollution-free, silent, super efficient engines known to man. It does not need air to function and the hydrogen peroxide fuel made onbaod by electrical process is consumed leaving fresh water and oxygen that can be exhausted back to the showers and life support systems.
Your grim views of the engines potential are not founded on reality. The nuclear navy=Sirling/battery array concepts. Nothing more exotic than that. The rest is taken care by big piles of national secrecy gag rules. The hoaxster’s paradise in other words.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:51 pm
I have bent over backwards trying to flush the grammar nazis out and still no takers, Maybe they got tired of being used as unsuspecting online spell checkers, lol.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Alexis1111 said:
I never said I knew you were female, only that I thought it was a distinct possibility given the name. It doesn’t matter one way or another. Are you saying it would be an insult to be believed to be a female?
Oh well, you’re an crazy guy and not a crazy girl. doesn’t matter too much in the end.
Alexis1111 said:
You disipoint me. Really? That stupid an error?
sure, you can make hydrogen peroxide from water using energy and you can use it to generate energy, but you can’t do it all in a closed system.
it’s like saying a motor turns an generator to power the motor. Okay – I get you won’t understand that because it’s not a perfect comparison..
A system that produces a chemical using energy and generates energy by consuming the same chemical can never work. There is an energy deficit.
You need energy to make the hydrogen peroxide. Where does this energy come from? It can’t come from the hydrogen peroxide engines!
Alexis1111 said:
I know how a sterling engine works, but you’re wrong about them being the most pollution-free super efficient engines ever known. They are thermal engines and require heat to run, so “pollution free” depends entirely on where that heat comes from. They’re just like a steam turbine or a reciprocating steam engine or any other thermal engine except they have a closed gas-phase working fluid.
Sterling engines work very well in a few narrow circumstances, but their thermal efficiency is nothing amazing. They may work better than steam in circumstances where the temperature difference is relatively low, but like all thermal engines they max out at the Carnot Limit. In practice they don’t really get anywhere close.
The thermal efficiency for a small to medium sterling engine is about 15%-30%. That’s roughly the same as a gasoline engine of the same size but less than a high efficiency diesel engine. At larger sizes, turbines just work a lot better.
You’re really boring me. Really.
Quote Comment
July 3rd, 2010 at 12:17 am
drbuzz0 said:
Doc,
I was reading a while back about some work using sterlings to replace thermocouples in RTG to boost efficiency. Any other thoughts on where they might be useful?
Quote Comment
July 3rd, 2010 at 12:34 am
matthew said:
Yeah, I read about that too. It seems like a pretty good idea. The one disadvantage as far as I can see is the whole issue of reliability. The thing about thermocouplers is that they’re free of moving parts and can do their thing for a long long time. The ones on the Voyagers are still in pretty good shape.
A reciprocating piston in a little engine just does not seem like the kind of thing you can reasonably expect to keep chugging in deep space for 30+ years with nobody to lube it or service it in any other way.
I don’t really know if that matters though. If it’s just for a mission of a few months or a year to deep space it might work out just as well.
It definitely could boost efficiency that is for sure.
Quote Comment
October 8th, 2010 at 5:56 am
“They worship the sun, after all. Lucifer. So why wouldn’t they use him as their greatest weapon?”
Thanks for finding this video. I about pissed myself laughing. I’m going to get some beer and show this to my friends tomorrow. This makes the World Jewish-Reptile Conspiracy seem downright plausible.
What is with all the Alex Jones/Elder Zion crazies? Why do they come here?
Quote Comment
October 8th, 2010 at 6:30 am
I just wanted to comment on Alexis (aka Dr. Crazy) on a point of WW2 history: “Why do you think Hitler extended every political coutesy to Switzerland while savagely divesting every other country of her treasure?”
Because Switzerland is geographically well situated, heavily armed, heavily fortified, and the Swiss would have bombed all the passages in and out of the alps (which could have stopped traffic from France to Italy and Austria) if Hitler tried anything. Not to mention it was a relatively small country that was easier to go around with armored vehicles. Switzerland has not been invaded in quite a long time, it’s not worth the trouble.
Even Napoleon quickly restored their independence, because it was better than having them revolt.
Quote Comment
October 8th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
R.J. Moore II said:
That was surely part of it, but I also think Switzerland as an independent neutral state suited the needs of Hitler more than it would if they were to successfully invade and take it over. Switzerland has always been an important nation for banking and exchange and was a big banking partner of the Nazi government. As an independent neutral state it was the perfect go-between to conduct any kind of trade with others (Latin America, Spain ect). It had diplomatic importance. As a neutral body that was respected by the allies in this manner, it could do things like transfer assets between Japan and Germany. During the war, the Swiss Franc was the only freely tradable currency in the world.
By the way: This is not to say that there were not tensions or threats. Germany drafted plans to invade Switzerland but never used them. The Swiss military grew and the Swiss installed heavily armed troops at all passes and along the border. Switzerland was bombed a few times by both allies and axis aircraft either by mistake or because the aircraft were damaged and limped into swiss airspace before crashing. There were blockades at one point or another of Switzerland by both the Allies and Axis – this again caused some diplomatic clashes and threats of military action.
But the big reason is the obvious one: it’s a very very well defended country due to the natural geography and it’s small and not worth the effort to take, especially considering how badly Germany overextended herself.
Quote Comment
October 8th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
@drbuzz0
All excellent points.
Quote Comment
May 10th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Thanks for your contribution to such a superb content. You appear to be to be really ardent and prepared to talk about your awareness not to mention invest your time constantly adding the web site to offer us all the viewer with such precise as well as enlightening content and articles.
Quote Comment