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 ICfreely on February 9th, 2015, 8:06 pm

https://sites.google.com/a/ncsu.edu/nuclear-energy/public-perception

The above NCSU article regarding the media’s role in shaping public perception of nuclear energy is a MUST READ for anyone clued in on media fakery and the nuke hoax. Here are a few excerpts along with my two cents.

Frameworks

“Each time information is presented in the media, it is wrapped in a so-called “package” or framework1. This is not a bias towards a certain feeling towards the subject, rather an envelope containing a unique way to approach information. In this way, one could be either for or against a topic and stay within one framework. Frameworks are characterized by symbols, which make it easy to convey a succinct message and are shown in all forms of common media—newspaper, TV, cartoons, opinion columns, movies, etc. Once presented, there is much room for debate within a framework.”

- “Packages/frameworks” are nothing more than euphemisms for mental cages. Mental cages designed to keep you trapped in fear. You’re free to think within the box but if you dare to think outside the box you’ll be branded a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

1945 (Hiroshima) – 1960’s

The Progress package“…a dualist package that states that “civilization would vanish in a cataclysmic holocaust, or the atomic future would be unimaginably bright.”1 The media presented nuclear technology as headed down one of these two paths.”

-Symbol: Mushroom Cloud and the sudden and enormous destruction associated with it.

“…nuclear energy itself seemed to be a non-issue. Most dissociated the bomb from nuclear energy, so there was no major public opinion for or against the latter. It is also important to note that there were virtually no other frameworks available to the US population through the media during this time…”

-1962 - Cuban Missile Crisis – the bomb, cold war nuclear proliferation dominant issues

-1966 - Fermi reactor semi-meltdown – no talk of environmental consequence

-1969 - Apollo 11 mooning of America, UNESCO meeting for 1st earth day

“Disney also released an episode regarding the public education of the “atomic age” through explanations by Walt Disney. This perhaps best sums up the availability of the progress schema of the time.”

-We can always count on uncle Walty and his team of imagineers to “educate” us can’t we?

1970’s – Three Mile Island (1979)

-1970 - 1st earth day

-1972 - Apollo 17 ‘Blue Marble’ – symbol of modern environmental movement

The Energy Independence package“…framework that focused heavily on America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy. In this framework, nuclear energy, domestic oil, natural gas, and coal were presented as feasible alternatives to this foreign dependence. This package is heavily drawn on when referring to the Arab oil embargo of 1973.”

The Soft Paths package“…emphasized individual attention to individual, ecological consequences of energy use. Those who were in opposition to nuclear energy in the context of this framework were against centralized technology (nuclear energy being more centralized than most) and supported living harmoniously with the environment. Those who supported it focused on nuclear power’s relatively low carbon emissions to aid with harmonious living.”

“An environmental wing, Friends of the Earth, presented the following example of this package: “Do we wish to continue a way of life that is wasteful of energy, relies on highly centralized technologies, and is insensitive to ecological consequences? Or do we want to become a society more in harmony with its natural environment?””

The Public Accountability package“…epitomized by Ralph Nader, included those who attacked corporations for being more protective of their industry than of the public. In a speech given by Nader, the hypothetical question was posed: “If Exxon owned the sun, would we have solar energy?” This populist view emphasized the need for public involvement in energy decisions.”

-Thank God for the likes Ralph Nader and Ron Paul who have the courage to “speak truth to power.”

The Not Cost Effective package“…highlighted the many unsolved problems and delays associated with nuclear energy. The promise of delivering energy “too cheap to meter” was becoming a myth setback by setback. Those who have this mindset point out the heavy initial capital, the mining costs, and the waste created from the nuclear reactors as examples of how nuclear energy does not stand up to its energy production gains. In the antinuclear movement, the Union of Concerned Scientists proposed the following argument: “When one compares the costs and benefits of nuclear energy with the alternatives, it makes a poor showing. Nuclear power, through nobody’s fault in particular, has turned out to be a lemon, and it is foolish to keep pouring good money after bad by supporting the continued development of nuclear energy.””

Cost of power plant construction surged due in part to “President Carter’s speeches emphasizing the need for strong governmental regulation of nuclear reactors, lest its production be diverted to weapon use.”

-How convenient!

The Runaway package“…is a grin and bear it view of nuclear energy. It accepts the consequences of nuclear energy as too large for us to tackle anytime in the near future and suggests, fatalistically, that research be focused on ways to minimize the negative consequences of this technology. Instead of being anti-nuclear, this package supports a resigned view and is expressed heavily in political cartoons.”

“A scant few weeks before the Three Mile Island incident, there was a major turning point in public opinion of nuclear energy due to the film China Syndrome. This movie encompassed two frameworks—public accountability and runaway, but more importantly provided symbols and visual evidence of what a nuclear meltdown could be like, albeit fake. With this movie came a sharpened awareness of the dangers of a nuclear meltdown, which ironically occurred partially at Three Mile Island a few weeks later.”

-Less ironic and more predictive programming as usual.

Three Mile Island to Chernobyl

“With the disaster at Three Mile Island (TMI), the media linked the iconic cooling tower to the disaster. Replacing the mushroom cloud as a symbol, the cooling tower was widely used and is still used today.”

The Devil’s Bargain package“This encompasses the idea that there is a price to pay for all of the benefits reaped initially from nuclear power. This price could be dangers to the environment, to our physical health, and to the health of the world.”

Chernobyl to present day

The NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) package“…represents this apathetic attitude towards the building of nuclear reactors—proponents accept a need for nuclear energy reactors to be built, but not when it is in or near where they live.”

-Makes sense. Who’d want those scary cooling towers in their back yard with a clumsy moron like Homer Simpson at the helm?

US Trends

“An interesting note regarding the presentation of information to the public is the impact of trust on public opinion. In a survey, it was found that the sources that people trust the most are scientists and engineers working on nuclear energy (75% trust these sources)2. However, when asked if they trusted energy companies and safety authorities, 50% responded as trusting these sources. The least trusted source was news anchors.”

“It was also found that as knowledge of how a reactor works and the specifics of nuclear energy increases, so does the support of nuclear energy. However, in the same study, most people stated that they feel relatively uninformed.”

-In other words, even though people are admittedly uninformed about unclear energy they maintain blind faith in its high priests. Sheesh, talk about cognitive dissonance!

Conclusion

“Everyone who has heard of nuclear energy knows at least something about it. However, similar to much we come into contact with, what people know is never the whole truth. And what people believe is rarely based on everything involved. It is interesting to note how people get their information and what they choose to believe. How different would all of the above trends be if advocates or dissenters of the technology took more time to educate us at the individual level? How different would they be if no one had heard of nuclear energy from the media? Without a doubt, people’s opinions would be much different.”

-Much different indeed!

“…public opinion is typically based on what people have experienced through their limited connection with the limited media (for the most part). Even though so much happens in the other realms, it is important to not only note how it is transferred to the people, but how the news and technologies of nuclear energy can be transmitted to the population without a filter, or a minimal one.”


-Hence, CLUES FORUM!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby hoi.polloi on February 9th, 2015, 9:24 pm

Great post, thanks for peering into the psychology of the hoaxers.

- “Packages/frameworks” are nothing more than euphemisms for mental cages. Mental cages designed to keep you trapped in fear. You’re free to think within the box but if you dare to think outside the box you’ll be branded a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.


No offense meant. I have a tiny bone to pick with how you phrased this. Frameworks are just contexts. You could specify it is a specific type of use of frameworks that produces fear. I think that is what you meant, and it's my fault for misinterpreting. Just in case I wasn't the only one, though, I will just say that telling you context before launching into a story isn't a mental cage, it's a mature thing to do. Children don't have as many frameworks to work with, but it's something you get with age. Refusing to try to meet contexts with your audience is derangement (or just strategically cantankerous I suppose). That's what the perps do. The thing I hope we demand at CluesForum is honest contextual information. This is why we are different from the news. The news just launches into spin immediately without explaining, without citation and without providing reasons to trust sources. We have tried to create a platform for the opposite: to explain to people what we are thinking, cite sources and caution against potentially untrustworthy ones.

Again, awesome post, and funny. Well done.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby simonshack on February 9th, 2015, 10:19 pm

ICfreely wrote:
“Disney also released an episode regarding the public education of the “atomic age” through explanations by Walt Disney. This perhaps best sums up the availability of the progress schema of the time.”

-We can always count on uncle Walty and his team of imagineers to “educate” us can’t we?



Indeed, dear ICfreely, indeed... uncle Walty was instrumental in creating this cartoon-world we now live in ! <_<
- and thanks for your great post.

"OUR FRIEND THE ATOM" - by Walt Disney :

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByZ1AyDEGSk
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6532
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby Maat on February 10th, 2015, 8:17 am

simonshack wrote:
ICfreely wrote:
“Disney also released an episode regarding the public education of the “atomic age” through explanations by Walt Disney. This perhaps best sums up the availability of the progress schema of the time.”

-We can always count on uncle Walty and his team of imagineers to “educate” us can’t we?


Indeed, dear ICfreely, indeed... uncle Walty was instrumental in creating this cartoon-world we now live in ! <_<
- and thanks for your great post.

"OUR FRIEND THE ATOM" - by Walt Disney :

Oh yes, and since Uncle Walty’s goal was to build his Disneyland cash-cow, he was happy to provide whatever would help finance it.

Disney’s scientific consultant in that video, Heinz Haber, was one of Eisenhower’s enslaved German physicists (along with Wernher von Braun etc. per Operation Paperclip).

Haber+Braun2.jpg

Perfect arrangement for profit & propaganda. Per http://www.brainpickings.org/2013/05/15/heinz-haber-our-friend-the-atom-disney-tomorrowland/

In 1954, Walt Disney entered an unusual barter-economy arrangement with television network ABC: He would provide them with a weekly hour-long broadcast, and in exchange they’d fund the construction of Disneyland. The TV show, originally named after the theme park Disney envisioned and later renamed Tomorrowland, went on to become one of the longest-running series in TV history, producing 54 seasons, 13 of which were hosted by Disney himself.

In January of 1957, two years after the release of Disney’s illustrated gem Our Friend the Atom, German atomic physicist and science writer Heinz Haber (May 15, 1913 — February 13, 1990) — whom Disney had hired as chief scientist at Disneyland and who had authored the book — appeared on an episode of the show bearing the same title as the book and exploring the “exciting possibility” of atomic energy as a new power source for humanity through a mix of science and illustrative animations from Disney films.

Per Wiki:

In 1952, [Heinz Haber] became associate physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles; in the 1950s, Haber eventually became the chief scientific consultant to Walt Disney productions. He later co-hosted Disney’s Man in Space with von Braun. When the Eisenhower administration asked Disney to produce a show championing the civilian use of nuclear power, Heinz Haber was given the assignment. He hosted the Disney broadcast called Our Friend the Atom and wrote a popular children’s book with the same title, both of which explained nuclear fission and fusion in simple terms. General Dynamics, a manufacturer of nuclear reactors, sponsored Our Friend the Atom and the nuclear submarine ride at Disneyland’s Tomorrowland.[4]

Ref Our Friend the Atom on Amazon

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Atomic Phallusy

Rather "suggestive" imagery for a Disney cartoon — repeated in the "bomb test" fakery by RKO-Pathe as well :rolleyes:

Image___Image
clip source ______________________________________________________________________________________clip source (Ref 2011 post)
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby ICfreely on February 10th, 2015, 5:19 pm

Hoi & Simon,

Point taken. I see where you're coming from. I intentionally included 'framework' to cover my bases so to speak because the author, for whatever reason, used 'package' & 'framework' interchangeably. No one needs to worry about offending my delicate sensibilities. Truth be told, I’m more comfortable being questioned/critiqued than complimented. That’s what the scientific process is supposed to be all about. Thanks for the kind words as well.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby ICfreely on February 10th, 2015, 5:38 pm

The Golden Boy & the Redheaded Stepchild

Ernest Rutherford (Father of unclear fizziks) and John Sealy Townsend were the first two non-Cambridge students to enter Cavendish Laboratory due to a change in the Trinity College, Cambridge examination statutes. They were the top two disciples of the great J.J. Thomson (The most influential pioneer of unclear fizziks). Both were elected fellows of the Royal Society and recipients of Royal Society medals. They both were also knighted (Rutherford in 1914 and Townsend in 1941). The similarities end there. Rutherford went on to achieve scientific sainthood while Townsend was ostracized as a heretic of the Church of Modern Science.

The Golden Boy – Ernest Rutherford

According to the American Institute of Physics,

“In 1911, by bombarding atoms with alpha particles (helium ions), he found that the atom has inside it a small and heavy nucleus. In 1919 Rutherford managed to bombard the nucleus itself. By absorbing an alpha particle, the nucleus of nitrogen transformed into a nucleus of oxygen and emitted a proton. The old dream of medieval alchemists, the transmutation of chemical elements, had been achieved.”

http://www.aip.org/history/lawrence/first.htm

In Dewey B. Larson’s “The Case against the Nuclear Atom” he states,

“In the belief, therefore, that the existence of the nucleus was proved by Rutherford’s findings, two ad hoc assumptions have been made to reconcile the contradictory items: (1) that some kind of a ―nuclear force exists in opposition to the force of repulsion that would otherwise destroy the hypothetical structure, and (2) that the normally unstable neutron is stable in the nuclear environment.”
“But the employment of such assumptions is uncomfortably close to the ancient custom of attributing all unexplained events to the actions of spirits and demons, and all too often it simply diverts attention from the real problem and impedes the march of scientific progress, just as any other appeal to the supernatural is likely to do. Certainly the piling of one of these unsupported assumptions on top of another cannot be justified under any circumstances, and this is just exactly the situation that the proton-neutron theory is in, now that it has been shown that Rutherford’s experiments did not prove the existence of a nucleus.”

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana02.htm

While we’re at it, if grandma had balls she’d be grandpa and if ands or buts were candy and nuts everyday would be Christmas!

The following Testimonials to Dewey B. Larson might pique your interest:

Testimonials to Dewey B. Larson
"To all of us, steeped in the unquestioning adoration of the contemporary scientific method, this is rude and outspoken book, which sometimes hurts. The frightening thing about it is that it rings true."
--Discovery Magazine, review of The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, July 1963

"As an iconoclastic work, Larson's book is refreshing. The scientific community requires stirring up now and then; cherished assumptions must be questioned and the foundations of science must be strenuously inspected for possible cracks. It is not a popular service and Mr. Larson will probably not be thanked for doing this for nuclear physics, though he does it in a reasonably quiet and tolerant manner and with a display of a good knowledge of the field."
--Isaac Asimov, review of The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, Chemical and Engineering News, July 29, 1963

"I have never before seen anybody with such an independent and absolute logic."
--Hans F. Wuenscher, former Assistant Director for Advanced Projects, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA, letter to the then-current Director, November 1, 1979, reprinted in Reciprocity, Spring 1981


"From what I have read thus far, thorough study of his work requires at least three attributes in one very intelligent person: a willingness to expend a great deal of intellectual energy with no guarantee of success, the humility to set aside what one 'knows' long enough to follow through on new ideas, and the emotional strength and self confidence needed to resist possible admonishments of colleagues who would dismiss the new ideas based on cursory analysis."
--J. Edward Anderson, Professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Boston University, letters dated October 1, 1988 and October 29, 1988, in support of a proposed physics seminar by Larson or an associate, reprinted in ISUS News, Autumn 1988, pp. 8-9

https://transpower.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/rs_testimonials_to_larson1.pdf

A couple of rhetorical questions come to mind. Why and to who exactly is Larson’s Idea, that happens to ring true, so “frightening”? Further, if he presents it “in a reasonably quiet and tolerant manner and with a display of a good knowledge of the field” why wouldn’t he be thanked by the nuclear physics community? So much for the myth of an objective and impartial truth-seeking scientific process.

“Nucleus: A Trip into the Heart of Matter” states,

The end of chemistry's most cherished belief
"Elements are the foundation stones of chemistry. The vast variety of substances around us are made from combining elements – such as carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen – in different ways. At the turn of the twentieth century, a firmly held belief was that atoms never change. Carbon atoms remain carbon atoms; iron stays iron; gold cannot be made from lead; and once uranium, always uranium. Rutherford and his colleague Frederick Soddy, who was at that time working with him at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, overturned this idea. They found radioactivity was a process that could transform one element into another. Somehow, one type of atom emitted a particle and became another type of atom. No doubt mindful of the ill-repute arising from thousands of years of futile attempts to make gold from lead, Rutherford is reported to have said to his friend: “Don’t call it transmutation, Soddy, or they’ll have our heads as alchemists!

"The idea of atoms transmuting from one type to another met with initial resistance, even from the Curies. Within a few years, however, such overwhelming evidence was presented by Rutherford, Soddy and many others, that transmutation became widely accepted. A great number of people were soon involved in unravelling [sic.]the complicated story of which element transmuted into what. This task was made much easier by knowing the nature of alpha and beta radiation, as well as by the discovery of a third type of radioactivity called gamma rays."

http://www.amazon.com/Nucleus-Trip-into-Heart-Matter/dp/142140351X

Well there you have it. Transmutations “somehow” happened but, for the love of God, whatever you do don’t call it transmutation. The psy-ence is settled so keep it moving folks, nothing to see here (literally). Now beam me up Soddy! I suspect “widely accepted” is code for “Delphi Technique-d.” Anyhow for his ground-breaking ‘discovery’ our alchemist nuclear physicist hero, Sir Ernest Rutherford, went on to become Director of Cavendish Laboratory (1919), President of the Royal Society (1925-1930) and have his ashes interred in Westminster Abbey (1937) not far from fellow scientific saints & Royal Society members Sir J.J. Thomson, Sir Isaac Newton and Sir Charles Darwin. A murderer’s row of master magicians if there ever was one.

For what it’s worth, “Ernest Rutherford's original atomic model is now understood to be inaccurate, but it retains its meaning as an icon today.” - http://atomic.lindahall.org/what-is-an-atom.html

According to the Royal Society of London,

The New Alchemy: Rutherford and the Atom
“The ground-breaking work of Rutherford and his collaborators launched the new field of nuclear physics. Following his lead, researchers such as James Chadwick FRS and Patrick Blackett FRS delved further into the structure of the atom. In 1932, Chadwick announced the existence of the neutron. Physicists and others became interested in the potential use of atomic energy. Worldwide curiosity about CERN's newly-constructed Large Hadron Collider demonstrates that our fascination with the tiniest particles of the natural world continues.”


https://royalsociety.org/exhibitions/2009/rutherford/

Those fellow collaborators have been fascinating us in a fascist-nating manner for quite some time now. Let’s not forget the fact that so called nuclei, as well as atoms for that matter, are not only invisible to the naked eye they are also invisible under the most powerful microscopes. These high priests of physics are essentially blind men in a dark room looking for black cats (quarks, quasars, leptons, bosons, neutrinos, etc…) that aren’t there. The alleged discoveries that they’re making (fabricating) in their eternal quest for “God’s particle” are tantamount to pulling invisible rabbits out of non-existent hats. Why anyone takes such trite seriously is beyond me.

Side note 1 - Roald Amundsen purportedly led the first expedition to the geographical South Pole in that magical year that was 1911.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%27s_South_Pole_expedition#mediaviewer/File:At_the_South_Pole,_December_1911.jpg

Side note 2 – Sir Arthur Eddington’s (yet another fellow of the Godforsaken Royal Society) sham of a ‘discovery’ which launched Albert Einstein into the scientific stratosphere took place in…you guessed it, 1919. For more on that you can read:

“The Eclipse Data From 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science” By Richard Moody Jr.
http://blog.hasslberger.com/Moody%20-Eclipse_Data_From_1919.pdf

For the math-a-magically inclined I suggest:

“Unsolved Problems in Special and General Relativity - 21 collected papers”
http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/UnsolvedProblemsRelativity.pdf

E=MC^2 makes as much scientific sense as E=MC Hammer, but I digress.

The Redheaded Stepchild – John Sealy Townsend

According to Oxford University’s biography of John Sealy Townsend:

“As a believer in classical statistical mechanics, he rejected vehemently relativity and quantum theory. Though Townsend discovered a new phenomenon in the early 1920s—that monatomic gases offer no resistance to low-energy electrons—it became known as the Ramsauer effect because most physicists then accepted the quantum theory and agreed with Ramsauer that it was a quantum phenomenon. Feeling robbed of a discovery which was subsequently important in understanding the wave-like nature of the electron, Townsend never attended after 1924 any international meeting while a professor and he withdrew from commercial work.”

However, by the 1930s Townsend was a sad figure. A dreary lecturer, a dogmatic supervisor of research, and so out of touch with physics as a whole as to be culpably negligent, he was upstaged in electronics by E. B. Moullin, the reader in electrical engineering in the engineering science department at Oxford. No German refugee sought accommodation in the electrical laboratory before the Second World War, while next door, Lindemann, Dr Lee's professor, provided sanctuary in the Clarendon Laboratory for eight refugee physicists, some of whom stayed and put it on the international map for its low temperature physics. Once the university had decided in the late 1930s to build a new Clarendon, it examined the relations between the two physics laboratories and their professors. It wished to convert Townsend's chair into one for theoretical physics but shelved the issue. In 1941 his career at Oxford ended. His intransigence about helping in the war effort by teaching servicemen provoked the university to take the drastic step of establishing a visitatorial board. It found him guilty of grave misconduct and advised that he resign or be sacked. Townsend, who had been knighted in January, perhaps as a hint to depart, retired in September on condition that the decision of the board would remain confidential.”

http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/101036541/John-Townsend


So the Golden Boy who supposedly achieved “The old dream of medieval alchemists” was deified and the Redheaded Stepchild who didn’t play along was relegated to the dustbin of history. For more than a century almost every scientist who’s had the audacity to question/reject the atomic/nuclear and general/special relativity theories has been ridiculed, vilified and or ostracized a la the Inquisition. IMHO unclear fizziks is clearly an organized religion masquerading as a science.

If you ask someone whether or not they believe in alchemy their response will most likely be something to the effect of, “Of course not, everyone knows that turning lead into gold is an ancient superstitious myth.” If you ask the same person whether or not they believe in the existence of nuclear energy/bombs they will most likely say, “Of course, what kind of silly question is that?” Therein lies the rub! The fact of the matter is that belief in the existence of nuclear energy/bombs goes hand-in-hand with belief in the substantiality of alchemy. There’s no two ways about it. You can’t have one without the other. If you choose to believe in such things that’s your prerogative. I will respect your beliefs just as I respect anyone else’s faith-based religious beliefs. But I won’t call it science…Soddy!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby Seneca on February 10th, 2015, 8:58 pm

ICfreely wrote:The following Testimonials to Dewey B. Larson might pique your interest:

Testimonials to Dewey B. Larson
"To all of us, steeped in the unquestioning adoration of the contemporary scientific method, this is rude and outspoken book, which sometimes hurts. The frightening thing about it is that it rings true."
--Discovery Magazine, review of The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, July 1963

"As an iconoclastic work, Larson's book is refreshing. The scientific community requires stirring up now and then; cherished assumptions must be questioned and the foundations of science must be strenuously inspected for possible cracks. It is not a popular service and Mr. Larson will probably not be thanked for doing this for nuclear physics, though he does it in a reasonably quiet and tolerant manner and with a display of a good knowledge of the field."
--Isaac Asimov, review of The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, Chemical and Engineering News, July 29, 1963

"I have never before seen anybody with such an independent and absolute logic."
--Hans F. Wuenscher, former Assistant Director for Advanced Projects, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA, letter to the then-current Director, November 1, 1979, reprinted in Reciprocity, Spring 1981


"From what I have read thus far, thorough study of his work requires at least three attributes in one very intelligent person: a willingness to expend a great deal of intellectual energy with no guarantee of success, the humility to set aside what one 'knows' long enough to follow through on new ideas, and the emotional strength and self confidence needed to resist possible admonishments of colleagues who would dismiss the new ideas based on cursory analysis."
--J. Edward Anderson, Professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Boston University, letters dated October 1, 1988 and October 29, 1988, in support of a proposed physics seminar by Larson or an associate, reprinted in ISUS News, Autumn 1988, pp. 8-9

https://transpower.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/rs_testimonials_to_larson1.pdf


Have you read the book yourself? Because the testimonials you give don't impress me: a magazine, a science fiction writer, a NASA scientist and a Professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering...
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 445
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby simonshack on February 10th, 2015, 10:08 pm

*
Alternative meanings of GEIGER

Sorry to interject here with some light trivia... but I just could not resist sharing my day's little linguistic musing.

I was wondering today whether the German word "geiger" (aside from being undoubtedly the most universally familiar / well-known household-'name' associated with the fearsome "atomic radiation /radioactivity") also had other meanings and synonyms.

Well, yes, apart from being the surname of the famous inventor of the Geiger counter, it indeed has other meanings... <_<
Geiger_meaning_of.PNG

https://translate.google.it/#en/de/fiddler
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6532
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby ICfreely on February 11th, 2015, 7:18 am

"Have you read the book yourself? Because the testimonials you give don't impress me: a magazine, a science fiction writer, a NASA scientist and a Professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering..."

Dear Simon,

Yes I have read Larson's book and...

1) I agree with you 100% - Discovery Magazine, Isaac Ass-imov, Hans F. Wuenscher, J. Edward Anderson have absolutely no scientific credibility. Moreover, NASA ‘scientist’, sci-fi writers & Disney imagineers are all one and the same as far as I'm concerned. In retrospect I should have made that disclaimer.

2) I used that excerpt from Larson’s book to demonstrate how theoretical scientists use ad hoc assumptions to save the failed ‘sacred cow’ theories of their predecessors by proposing preposterous theories of their own. For the record, I don’t endorse Larson’s “New Light on Space and Time” theory either.

3) By giving credence to Larson’s contention of the non-existence of the nucleus, the testimonials from the aforementioned sources, inadvertently cast doubt on their own purported achievements.

“50 Years of Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft”
http://www.space.com/12118-space-nuclear-power-50-years-transit-4a.html

Their testimonials don't impress me either since they have no credibility. But I think they do help in discrediting themselves. I hope that makes sense.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby Seneca on February 11th, 2015, 9:33 am

Thanks for the clarification. (I made that remark, not Simon)
You are right about these clowns discrediting themselves.
Thanks for the link, I read the book last night and find it very good. Only chapter 8 was a bit too repetitive.
Larson destroys the atomic model (the idea that atoms are made up of neutrons, protons and electrons) and identifies many of the errors that were the consequences of trying to cover up the original mistake. Like for example Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I like this quote :
This attitude reaches a fitting climax in the strange upside-down thinking of the author who solemnly assures us that “Quantum physics presents a strong case against traditional logic.”

I see parallels with the reasoning of people who don't believe the possibility of media fakery. I recommend it, especially to Selene to learn the difference between good science and bad science (like Judy Wood is doing).
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 445
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby Critical Mass on February 11th, 2015, 5:43 pm

As I've discussed a number of times I have a theory that the 7/5/45 '108 tonne' TNT test & the 16/7/45 'Trinity Atomic test' were in fact the same thing.

Basically Trinity is just a huge TNT explosion with the footage then being played back in slow motion. Throw in a dramatic flash, a stirring soundtrack & some techno-babble and you've got yourself a Sci-Fi weapon of doom.

As supporting evidence I've mentioned the scarcity of '108 tonne TNT' footage & imagery plus the seeming official confusion over what is '108 tonne test' footage & what is 'Trinity' footage.

I should probably also mention the scarcity of eyewitness accounts & how no-one who supposedly witnessed the Trinity test seems to compare it with the other large explosion that they were meant to have witnessed only two months earlier.

Today I was watching an old 'docudrama' on the Manhattan Project. A 1947 movie called 'The Beginning or the End'. Now guess what footage crops up at 69:45 (or 1:50 at this link)?

Image

That's right... what today we know as the '108 tonne test' imagery (and which was, at least once, officially described as Trinity footage) is in fact a scene from an actual movie created by special effects artist Arnold 'Buddy' Gillespie!

I would suggest the neutral researcher now ask themselves... where exactly is the real imagery of this '108 tonne test'?

The whole movie is worth a watch... they made some pretty good mushroom clouds even with a limited budget.
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby Critical Mass on February 12th, 2015, 10:42 am

Now that we have successfully identified this footage...

Image

.. as a colorized version of a 1947 Hollywood movie scene we can have ourselves a bit of fun.

I can't find any specific information on how 'Buddy' Gillespie made the scene but I think a reasonable estimate would be a 'few pounds of flash powder'. Certainly he did not have access to large quantities of military grade TNT.

Lets say his charge was equivalent to 0.1 to 1kg of TNT.

Yet the resulting footage has been accepted as depicting a 108,000kg of TNT explosion (a 5 or 6 orders of magnitude overestimate) by individuals such as...

'Star Wars animator' Peter Kuran the director of 'Trinity and Beyond'

The 'weapons effect analyst' Carey Sublette & her 'Nuclear Weapons archive'

The 'Radio-chemistry society'

The 'Sonic bomb' nuclear weapon archive



It has, even more incredibly, been accepted as depicting an explosion allegedly equivalent to 22,000,000kg of TNT (a 7 or 8 orders of magnitude overestimate!!!) by...

'Nuclear physicist' Michael Wiescher in his Nuclear warfare lecture (page 6) to the Institute for Structure & Nuclear Astrophysics.

'Scientific story author' Antonio Canto

And, of course, the Atomic Energy Commission!



Not bad for a pound of gunpowder & some magnesium!


I ask the Neutral reader to consider this... if it is so easy to fool people with low budget Hollywood imagery even to this day is it really so outrageous to suggest that a high budget military deception operation could also continue to fool people to this day?


PS

Alex 'the Winker' Wellerstein has also linked to the imagery here & in this interesting article here

Unlike the Alamogordo explosion, which was conducted by the Army under the extreme time pressures of the late stages of the war, Beria and Kurchatov began preparing for the test a full three years before it happened. Construction of the experimental “polygon” … began by late 1946, and the Ministry of Defense, which directed the effort, had spent 185 million rubles (in 1945 rubles) by 1949. There was even a miniature copy of the polygon at Arzamas-16, so that small-scale replicas of the eventual test could be modeled with conventional explosions (analogous to the American 100-ton test).
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby ICfreely on February 13th, 2015, 12:23 am

Dear Seneca,

Sorry for the confusion brother. Glad you found the link useful. I'm deeply indebted to you, Simon, hoi, Maat, Selene, Critical Mass and every single contributor to this site. Your unique insights/perspective have helped me open my eyes so to speak. Kudos to you all and keep up the good work! For the record, I'm not anti-religion or anti-science. I'm anti deception, lies and fakery regardless of origin. Clues Forum is the last bastion for conscientiously curious critical thinkers in this mad world we inhabit. For what it's worth I implore all of you to investigate the Royal Society of London and the so called Scientific Revolution. I'm confident that if you do so you'll realize the eerie similarities between religious dogma and popular science dogma. Once you break free of the 'science vs. religion' paradigm you will hopefully realize where I'm coming from.

This whole nuclear energy/bomb nonsense is a fear-based reincarnation of the Hindu Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva (creator, preserver and destroyer). Almost all the key figures (especially JJ Thomson & his disciples) in the nuclear hoax were associated with Trinity College, Cambridge. Rutherford’s production of tritium in 1934, the trinity test site, Oppenheimer’s Bhagavad Gita recital "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” Notice a pattern?

Love, peace & a can of hair grease,
ICfreely
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby Seneca on February 13th, 2015, 12:49 am

ICfreely wrote:Dear Seneca,

Sorry for the confusion brother. Glad you found the link useful.

No problem. I guess you didn't see my private message about the book? You should see it next to "User Control Panel"
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 445
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Postby hoi.polloi on February 13th, 2015, 5:18 am

Right on, ICfreely. Actually, we have compared modern scientism or science-ism to a kind of priesthood several times. You will find such posts sparingly sprinkled throughout the forum, as various members were compelled to revive this increasingly obvious truth. Glad to hear you confirm it from another perspective. We will get through it. Let's press on with the facts, forensics and real science, to claim it back from those who would lead us around by our wallets.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

PreviousNext

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests