Remove this ad

I'd like to hear the evidence on why people think nuclear weapons are fake (which I do not)

Rss     Subscribe     Share     Tweet    


0 Points

avatar

DReam

Posts: 15 Member Since:07/01/16

#21 [url]

Jul 3 16 5:40 PM

Mathis writes about this. Not vouching for it either way but it is interesting.

The proliferation of nukes is itself a clue for me that they are fake. Not only do they provide the perfect cover for the Cold War [a more profitable and safer scenario than an actual war between E and W] and even for secret communication and cooperation between "enemies" ["to keep the peace"] I find it very hard to believe that the JudeoMasonic bankster Cabal that runs the West would allow nonWestern countries to get nukes if they were real. I mean, Pakistan? Even if govts could be controlled in perpetuity [which would always be a risky bet] any given nuke could "go missing", as many of the Soviet ones are purported to have. Money talks and military wages are low... Would They allow a weapon that could destroy one of their favourite hangouts [New York, London, Paris etc.] be so easily stealable? I think not. Ergo, they are fake.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#22 [url]

Jul 3 16 6:12 PM

In many ways I consider the nuclear lie to be the bottom of the rabbit hole because the full extent of the control system is revealed to any who awaken to it. There is nothing that has shaped the modern world more than the perception of the nuclear bomb and once that perception has been dispelled the illusions of modernity quickly fall away.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#23 [url]

Jul 3 16 8:57 PM

Neither of you are reasoning correctly. Ohm claimed to be posting the original film, which was made in the 1950s. A digital recreation from that time was not remotely possible, so I was naturally operating under the assumption that all video posted had to be original. I never said a realistic digital reproduction of a film from the 1950s in 2016 was not possible. The main issue at hand was whether the smoke was moving and whether that was proof images had been superimposed onto one another, which ohm lied about again, as he did with the first clip.

Choose any other topic: JFK, 9/11, etc. and dozens of books have been written, thousands of pieces of evidence marshaled. So far we've gotten two fake claims and a video of a real bomb test that displays no signs of fakery and none of your claims about it can be conclusively proven. Doesn't that tell you something?

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 3 16 8:59 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#25 [url]

Jul 3 16 9:07 PM

What do you mean the tracers 'appear out of nowhere'? They are fired before the test begins, and were there before the filming started. I was talking about the Tsar Bomba test, and we were talking about the video ohm posted, which he claimed showed non-moving smoke as proof when the smoke was moving.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#27 [url]

Jul 4 16 6:26 AM

You referred to a video where tracers appear out of nowhere. In none of the videos do tracers do that. That all sounds like a good idea for them DReam, but there is apparently no evidence for it, which makes it not much better than a scifi tale, garbage Chomskyesque assumptions. 'But something would have leaked, that many people can't keep a secret, people are too incompetent, they'd be insane to try that, they'd never let something like this happen,' etc, etc. These are ideas that probably all of us at some point held to be laws of nature and most people still do, and they turned out to be nothing but BS.

Could you perhaps be underestimating the cooperation and cohesion between nation states that were historically not allies, and therefore did not likely suddenly all become bosom buddies in the last century? This notion that the 'elites' have been running things together for 5,000+ years is in my mind groundless. It's often promoted by disinfo agents part of the general strategy of terrifying people into thinking they'll never be able to change anything. They may share a dark source of power and inspiration, and borrow symbology from each other once they become aware of it, but there's zero evidence they've cooperated for all that time or even known each other. I don't at all dismiss the idea of Russia being part of the NWO, but if they were it wouldn't mean nukes are fake. Nuclear fission is a universally available technology that can be developed independently and it's completely plausible for several different power centers to have obtained it openly or in secret since it was first discovered 80 or so years ago.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 4 16 6:54 AM. Edited 4 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

DReam

Posts: 15 Member Since:07/01/16

#29 [url]

Jul 4 16 11:24 AM

You misunderstand me. I never said the Elite have been monolithically running the planet for 5000 years. However Europe has been run by a Cabal fronted by the Rothschild family for 200 years, which did colonize the planet, and Russia has, demonstrably, been under Jewish bankster control since 1917. China was conquered with guns and opium and the Reds there were likewise run by Rockefeller, Kissinger et al. Mao was a puppet of the Yale Intel mission, with Jews actually sitting on the Politburo. The Reds put into power in the same way as in Russia. Cambodia too... The whole split of the world between "Communist" East and "Capitalist" West, as agreed at Yalta, was a contrivance of the banksters... The entire Communist world would have collapsed from famine and revolt and could have been easily overrun by the US if at any time within 10 to 15 years of the Western Elite ceased their frequent trade and donations of free food, technology, money... and intelligence [assisting the Red Intel in provoking dissenters into exposure for easy elimination.. and allowing Russian generals to head the UN Sec Council]. It's all a con. As detailed by Golitsyn [New Lies for Old etc.] and the book Vodka Cola. The donations to China of the West's manufacturing base and stolen technology are common knowledge... Do you really think the Western billionairres didn't know that this transfer of plant and knowhow to China was suicidal for Western competitiveness? Chinese spies run riot just as Jewish spies did for the USSR... all merely convenient explainations for the continuous tech transfer to level the field for the multipolar one world govt. A single strong superpower [the US] does not suit globalist plans for global gov.

As for the nuke info... I gave a suggestion... link http://mileswmathis.com/trinity.pdf

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#30 [url]

Jul 4 16 11:24 AM

They don't appear out of nowhere. It's clear they fade very quickly after being fired so for maximum visibility they would have been fired the moment the bomb detonated, when the screen goes white after the initial flash. They would appear instantly after being fired since they're tracers. Even if tracer motion graphics were inserted somehow despite no CGI being available, and there's no evidence they were, what would that establish? Nothing. It's not like you couldn't just easily use real tracers.

There really should be much more than this. We're spending so much time on one non-issue. Where are the hundreds of other pieces of hard evidence (not that what has been shown is evidence at all, but that won't stop ohm from proclaiming victory) there must be on a deception so complex, international, and vast? I'm waiting and I'm getting a lot of hemming and hawing and dwelling repeatedly on one piece of nothing.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#31 [url]

Jul 4 16 11:31 AM

If you don't think they appear out of nowhere in that video, there isn't much more I can say about this. It's like talking to someone who thinks the plane melting into the south tower on 9/11 looks real. There are specific and definite answers to all your questions regarding the global orchestration of this conspiracy, but why should I even present it when your own eyes fool you?

I'm fine to move onto other topics, since it's obvious nobody is going to budge either way on this.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

DReam

Posts: 15 Member Since:07/01/16

#32 [url]

Jul 4 16 12:10 PM

psmith85 wrote:

There really should be much more than this. We're spending so much time on one non-issue. Where are the hundreds of other pieces of hard evidence (not that what has been shown is evidence at all, but that won't stop ohm from proclaiming victory) there must be on a deception so complex, international, and vast? I'm waiting and I'm getting a lot of hemming and hawing and dwelling repeatedly on one piece of nothing.
 

There should be more? Plenty of huge murderous conspiracies have operated for centuries without outsiders getting much of a clue, much less the public having any clue. The Thuggees are a good example, killing and robbing countless thousands over centuries of English rule without their knowledge .
Saying a conspiracy can't be because "it's too big so we would know about it" is sheople or shill BS. Carrot [money, kudos and power] and stick [terrorism with violence and blackmail] works wonders to keep secrets.
Nukes as a hoax is "non-issue"? Seems to me like it is pivotal. Why would the US govt let Russia get the bomb? They're opposed? No, that was fake, as I just said.. Isn't it suspicious how quickly the Russians supposedly got their first nukes? Isn't it suspicious how perfectly nukes serve to enable the Communist states, guarantee the Cold War and terrorize the masses? Almost as if if the threat of nukes did not exist the PTB would fake them, eh?
So you are "waiting" for us to prove our case and spoonfeed you? Sheesh! How about you study the topic yourself? There are whole forums dedicated to nukes as hoax.. do you think they might claim more than one little bit of "nothing"evidence? http://www.big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/index.html

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#33 [url]

Jul 4 16 2:22 PM

He's obviously determined not to think about it and you can't force people down the rabbit hole.

The irony here is the fact he won't even take a reasonable position of uncertainty here is very similar to why the flat earthers can't have a intelligent discussion about one of the most obvious scientific facts in all of nature, yet he thinks they can be convinced otherwise if we only frame our argument the right way.

No wonder why there's so much energy focused on converting them back to the "ball earth stance," his faith in the intelligence of flat earthers supports his own delusion that people are so rational that they could never have been fooled by the nuke hoax. 

People are anything but rational and they can be convinced of almost anything, particularly a grandiose lie, if you can continually impress that lie onto their subconscious mind.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohm

Posts: 18 Member Since:06/28/16

#35 [url]

Jul 5 16 6:45 AM

psmith85 wrote:
Neither of you are reasoning correctly. Ohm claimed to be posting the original film, which was made in the 1950s. A digital recreation from that time was not remotely possible, so I was naturally operating under the assumption that all video posted had to be original. I never said a realistic digital reproduction of a film from the 1950s in 2016 was not possible. The main issue at hand was whether the smoke was moving and whether that was proof images had been superimposed onto one another, which ohm lied about again, as he did with the first clip.




 

I didn't "claim to be posting the original film." I simply posted a video, stating it was a another "fake blast" and noted its similarity to one posted earlier.

YOU claimed it was real footage and even explained away why it looked "other worldly" which you have since edited out of your post.

And, you write posts declaring us to be "not reasoning correctly" and falsely stating that I "lied" while you make lame excuses for your own idiotic comments:

                                                        "I was naturally operating under the assumption that ..."

You obviously can't tell the difference between real footage, faked footage and a cartoon!

There are numerous 1950s-60s videos of "nuke tests" that show obvious signs of fakery easily viewable online. If you can't see the fakery in them, you should find another hobby.
 

Last Edited By: ohm Jul 5 16 7:06 AM. Edited 10 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#36 [url]

Jul 5 16 7:30 AM

That's the third blatant lie you've told in one thread, and you even bothered to put in bold print like the others. I never edited anything. Check the post. What I admitted to was being fooled by modern CGI, which is all the easier when it is for a clip that was presented as being from the 1950s, before CGI existed; it's all there in your quote box. That's like photoshopping a photo from the Civil War with modern software and presenting it as a genuine, original photo from that period, and then mocking people who don't detect that it's been photoshopped. The discussion never allowed for the videos being completely digitally fabricated, so that wasn't something that was being looked for. The point being argued was whether the smoke was a still photo as you for the second time claimed, or was moving, and I pointed out it was moving.

Either you can't see, read, or think, or you're well aware of what you're doing and are here to start problems and promote BS Dubay theories that have no evidence behind them. Who am I kidding, you're a textbook infiltrator. Added to the list.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 5 16 9:35 AM. Edited 7 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#37 [url]

Jul 5 16 8:47 AM

My eyes didn't fool me. Nothing has been shown. The claims about scrub brush are inconclusive as I have already explained. Re: the Grable test, there is nothing suspicious. The rocket tracers didn't appear out of nowhere as gianthoax claimed. The smoke does in fact clearly move contrary to ohm's claim in two separate cases. Other than that it's just bombast and conjecture about why they might fake nukes and false Chomskyian assumptions about who could have let who done what. That kind of thinking is not evidence, it's a mental exercise that might lead one on the right trail and to the eventual discovery of evidence. I mentioned that there are probably over 1,000 pieces of evidence on no planes alone. Where is the nuke evidence? A reference to Miles Mathis isn't evidence. Show me the key points of real evidence, and let them stand on their own. But based on one of the recent posts on this, you're already conceding that there isn't any.

It's not spoon-feeding anything. It's a bullet point list of key exhibits of hard evidence. For anyone who knows what he's talking about about any subject, it's a trivial exercise that should take 5 minutes and be something you would be glad to do if you were interested in enlightening others, rather than confusing them. I could pump out 10- or 20-point lists for events like moon landing, Sandy Hook, and 9/11 in all of 10 minutes for the three of them because I've actually studied the evidence. Every conspiracy that's true has one thing in common: there is a lot of evidence to support it. There's a lot of evidence for 9/11, for the Illuminati, for rampant pedophilia and sex abuse among the powerful, for predictive programming, for chemtrails, for JFK, for all the recent hoaxes, etc. The BS (or at least baseless) theories- reptilians, Nibiru, etc- have no evidence. You claim there's tons of evidence, but seem to be either ashamed to list it yourself (instead referring me to your gurus in Flat Earth style) or unfamiliar with it (and therefore having rushed to judgment on it or taken a leap of faith based purely on conjecture), otherwise we'd have it by now.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 5 16 9:04 AM. Edited 5 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#38 [url]

Jul 5 16 9:17 AM

You definitely can't compare this to flat earth because it's not like you can go outside and observe a nuclear explosion whenever you want. It's more comparable to 9/11 no planes and the space-tech hoax, but is there really any "evidence" that we did not just send a probe to Pluto? Beyond the tell-tale signs of fakery there really isn't, so I guess you must believe in it.

Last Edited By: gianthoax Jul 5 16 9:21 AM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohm

Posts: 18 Member Since:06/28/16

#39 [url]

Jul 5 16 10:36 AM

psmith85 wrote:
That's the third blatant lie you've told in one thread, and you even bothered to put in bold print like the others. I never edited anything. Check the post.


 

Who's lying? Your post says "Edited 3 times." It's recorded underneath the post by the forum software. You removed your comment about the video appearing "other worldly" and then "explained" that it looks that way because it was shot in a remote area, etc.

I swear, you are the most pathetic troll I have ever seen on any forum.

Last Edited By: ohm Jul 5 16 1:23 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#40 [url]

Jul 5 16 3:10 PM

Stop lying. The otherworldly comment and explanation of it you claim was edited is still there and was never removed. The edits were for minor grammar and syntax tweaks. The original Tsar Bomba video setting also looks otherworldly. It's an uninhabited area of an island in the Arctic Ocean off the north coast of Siberia. You have exposed yourself as a paid shill. Please find another forum to harass. Any further posts you make will have zero credibility.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help