THE NUKE HOAX

Global War deceptions & mass manipulation, fear-mongering terror schemes and propaganda in the Age of the Bomb

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby pov603 on August 22nd, 2018, 3:58 pm

@Mansur
Thanks for the link to N. Martin Gwynne's essay, an interesting read!
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 777
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby patrix on August 23rd, 2018, 9:09 am

pov603 » August 22nd, 2018, 3:58 pm wrote:@Mansur
Thanks for the link to N. Martin Gwynne's essay, an interesting read!

Indeed. Thank you Mansur. And it's interesting to see how these different subjects intertwine. From the third part in this paper:
As is made clear in almost all textbooks dealing with the history of mathematics and physics, the emergence of the theory of Relativity was intimately related to the Michelson Morley experiment and its dramatic failure to show any velocity for the earth’s travels through the ether. Explanations for that failure were strenuously sought. The obvious solution, that the earth was stationary, was, as has been seen in my essay Galileo versus the Geocentric Theory of the Universe, not even considered.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 291
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby aa5 on August 23rd, 2018, 9:44 am

The fact that the only applications of particle physics/nuclear physics I have heard of are these billion dollar projects that we can never verify, right away that sounds suspicious.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby Mansur on August 23rd, 2018, 10:56 pm

My point was (firstly and on-topic) simply that we do not know anything about nuclear “revisionism” before the “conspiracy” era, or before the media so-called (“media” is in use from about the same time as “conspiracy theory”), i.e. about doubts and thoughts of men of more comprehensive visions. That Gwynne was one of them I am a nobody to verify. At the dawn of a “theory” i.e. at the beginning of its praxis, it is more probable that there still exist such a ones.

[As to be off topic : he is very vehemently pushing the geocentric view. The Galileo “case” in my view is that that was the point where the “world-view” as such started. Before that it was simply a [self-] evidence, — and the moment the material world is “viewed” and is viewed detached from any other and higher “aspects” i.e. viewed [as if] from the outside, it evokes perforce other views. So the "geocentric point of view" of today can not be “true”, because it is controversial and lacks absolutely any requirement for Truth. And, of course, that the “spiritual authority” meddled highly [or deeply] into the matter in spite of being completely beyond there jobs or scope.]
Last edited by Mansur on August 24th, 2018, 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mansur
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: August 18th, 2018, 10:22 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby aa5 on August 24th, 2018, 7:05 am

I liked Gwynne's courage of convictions. He strongly believed all particle physics was fake, thus he believed all applications of particle physics must also be faked. No matter how many facilities are working on the technology, no matter how many people are employed working on it, no matter how many brilliant scientists claim it is true, it still did not persuade him.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby Mansur on August 24th, 2018, 3:43 pm

aa5 » August 24th, 2018, 7:05 am wrote:...thus he believed all applications of particle physics must also be faked...


This is the question itself. We have the title “Nuclear Bombs, the Nuclear Deterrent, and all other Nuclear Matters: The Most Fantastic Hoax of All?” but not the paper itself. It can be an “establishment work”, as patrix indicates, in that way or other. As his over-emphasized “catholicity” at the end of the Galileo paper is some indication in that direction.
Mansur
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: August 18th, 2018, 10:22 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby aa5 on August 26th, 2018, 12:16 am

I read very fast so the Newton book and the Einstein book I read through.

To be critical, Gwynne has places where he starts down a powerful chain of logic, using really deep insights. Like showing how in calculus we have to use common sense from outside of calculus to rule out answers. Eg.. x² = 4. And it gives the answer x = -2 and x =2. Yet we rule out the -2 because we know a length cannot be negative. So he says in the Einstein book that the Newton book goes into depth on the logical problems in calculus and how this leads to problems in the logic in other areas. Yet in the Newton book he doesn't even mention calculus.

He spends like a paragraph or two enticing you with the beginnings of those actual logical arguments, then goes back to 10 pages of stupid quotes and his own speculations on the intentions of scientists and famous people from 100's of years ago. He takes the quotes of say a friend of Newton, on Newton, as the gospel truth(never considering that the historical record could be altered). For me I don't really care what Newton's underlying intentions were. Its like I don't judge a building by the political intentions of the architect.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby Mansur on August 27th, 2018, 3:07 am

As I remember he approaches private life (and "historicals") after realizing the insufficiency in the things, and not the other way round. (Anyway, it is always the problem with reading books and then judging them if being in the position.)

aa5 » August 26th, 2018, 12:16 am wrote: ...Its like I don't judge a building by the political intentions of the architect.


This fine principle works, I think, only as long as we have no problems with the intentions (or the edifices) in question. Beyond that, and if it needed, we have to look after another...
Mansur
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: August 18th, 2018, 10:22 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby Mansur on August 27th, 2018, 12:07 pm

aa5 » August 26th, 2018, 12:16 am wrote:... He takes the quotes of say a friend of Newton, on Newton, as the gospel truth(never considering that the historical record could be altered)...


Historical records can not but be altered or interpreted. There is no such thing as “true history”. Perhaps the right standard or measure here might be in professing one’s interests and intentions to the maximum extent one is able to do. (This I think is the really modern i.e. contemporary or actual question which in science seems the most burning one.)

On the other hand, Newton is pictured by mainstream history of science as representing the most disinterested hero of the scientific thought. But apart from his case: how should one treat the general tendency of “idealization”? How can it be scientific at all?
Mansur
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: August 18th, 2018, 10:22 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby aa5 on August 27th, 2018, 8:11 pm

Its possible the books we are reading have been edited with sections deleted.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby Mansur on August 30th, 2018, 2:43 pm

aa5 » August 27th, 2018, 8:11 pm wrote:Its possible the books we are reading have been edited with sections deleted.


Sorry, it is not „possible”. It is evidently so. (It is one book -- evidently with more than the three chapter we know. And we have titles certainly not being parts of this book.)

Perhaps even the text itself has been changed (omitting the paragraphs’ numeration of the original by which the cross references were made to the other parts of the book). Though the references are still there.

We are in the nuke thread, and my point was (and is) that : what the hell this man could have said about the hoax in 1985?

Maybe the paper (Nuclear Bombs, the Nuclear Deterrent, and all other Nuclear Matters: The Most Fantastic Hoax of All?) had never get its final form or at least was never published... (?)
Mansur
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: August 18th, 2018, 10:22 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby aa5 on August 31st, 2018, 5:13 am

One difference between 1985 and 2018 is nuclear reactors looked more promising to the lay person in 1985. Granted, even in 1985 the governments were coming up with all sorts of excuses on why they couldn't keep building more nuclear plants to replace other types of electrical generation; especially coal for most countries.

Then with their unfortunate disaster of Chernobyl in 1986, it gave the reason why no more nuclear plants would be built.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby Mansur on September 1st, 2018, 10:13 am

In Hungary (where there is only one power plant) a campaign has just been going on for years (or it is over, at whatever result, I don’t know) to build a second one (with Russian “help”). Probably, these things are going on in many places as well, especially in the East and perhaps in Africa. So no shortage of entrepreneurial people in this field. Maybe only the fraud (and the fraudsters’ purposes) became extremely complicated.

But back again : is it “reasonable to assume” that in that time, (maybe just) before the worldwide radiation danger hysteria campaign, there could have been people (beside of those “in the know”; and in considerable number or at least with considerable weight) who were more than just skeptics and that they could have it articulated somehow? It is absolutely impossible this “skepticism” being occurred in one head alone…
Mansur
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: August 18th, 2018, 10:22 pm

Previous

Return to WWI - WWII, the Nuke Hoax, the Cold War and JFK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests