Heh. It was just one of many sites. You can use a search engine. It shouldn't be my job to be your research assistant. I have things to do with my time too. I do understand asking for sources. I also see that can be used as an escape hatch. Sometimes you need to do the work yourself. People not spending vast time giving you research to YOUR satisfaction is not always their fault. They will not know what will satisfy you, they won't know what you already have seen, and they also may be speaking about things they've read over many years and not remember all the links... so looking for them is a large amount of their time that may not even be what you are seeking. i.e. You truly want to know... try looking yourself and guard yourself from any preconceived notions for while your current understanding can be true... it can also be false.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
To which i can only repeat:
Don't worry I've done my research!
I did out of curiosity look a little bit since it has been a very long time since I first heard about this stuff (over 3 decades). I likely first read about it in Encyclopedias, Magazines, heard in in physics classes, etc. So long ago it has melded with a vast amount of information that I am steadily losing details on as time passes.
https://www.wired.com/2010/01/first-fusion-bomb-test/
That was one I found on duckduckgo.com when searching on fusion bomb test.
Now the reason this would be called a fusion bomb is the hydrogen aspect. The elements that we previously found that we could achieve fission with (splitting/breaking) have been very high in the periodic table of elements. Uranium, Plutonium, etc. Thorium is also one that we could use for such a process. Now hydrogen on the other hand. As far as we know in physics hydrogen can't be really split into other elements. This in science is based upon the best model we currently have. Science is never settled, it only operates with what explains the most observable data at the given time. It can always be challenged. Yet we tend to use what explains the most observable data until we come up with a better model that explains more. It's just a tool. So is it PROOF? Not in the religious unquestionable, not to be challenged sense of the word. It is simply the best explanation for what we observe.
So is a hydrogen bomb really fusing hydrogen? I'm not sure how easy it would be to prove that. Though they do put out vastly more power than the fission bombs tested before that. The claim is that it is fusing hydrogen.
As far as I know such proof at sufficient detail is likely classified as then you, I, and everyone else would essentially have the blueprints to make the devices.
So they claim it is a hydrogen bomb. A fusion bomb.
Could it be just a much more effective fission bomb? Sure. It also might be a fusion bomb.
Science can't prove a negative. It can only provide models to explain what we observe. People can make up theoretical models that explain some things. They may hold until an observation comes along they cannot explain. At that point we likely hold onto the existing model as we need to use something until we come up with a model that explains the new observation as well as maintains an explanation for the old observations. We don't suddenly go "caveman" and decide. Oops... Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation don't explain the three body problem. Let's toss it all out. No the model was still very useful for terrestrial calculations, trajectories, creating devices, etc. It simply did not explain everything. Along comes Einstein and his theories resolved the three body problem, yet even his models have their flaws. We seek to find ways to explain the flaws with new models. Yet that is no simple task. The job of TRUE scientists is to question everything, and challenge them, even their own ideas. Yet they must do so with reason, evidence, etc. rather than simply stating a negative.
The bombs that have been called "atomic" (or atom) bombs since 1945 are 100% psyop - that is why I keep going back to the has one ever gone off? part - because despite all those internet videos saying over 3000 have been detonated, truth is not a single one has ever gone off.
The American bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were the most destructive bombings of all time.
Compared to that Hiroshima was just a bit shaken up :)
Yeah. I don't buy into that. Less probable with the data that is out there.
EDIT: And no I am not talking about your Dresden and Tokyo claims. We could indeed devastate an area far worse with sustained bombings. Yet we have not done what we have with a single "atomic" bomb anywhere else... only with sustained bombings.
We also had images and videos of the atomic bombs, as well as the craters, the radiation readings, etc long before we even had people like Stanley Kubrick to generate similar. In addition, the quality of the effects in such videos that came before Kubrick were way beyond what he could fake. In fact, even the digital effects we create today are not quite to the caliber of the earliest videos in many cases. I say this as someone who messes with such effects regularly, and tries to make them look better. I thus have gotten used to seeing visual effects and noticing flaws in them. The less flaws I see the more wowed by the effect I am. As with anything... creating them... attunes you to seeing flaws you might not otherwise notice, because you get used to looking for flaws in your own creations.
EDIT 2: These days I often tell people "seeing is no longer believing" because given time we can fake virtually anything on video or photos. We can do it with sound too. Yet some things such as the mushroom clouds have distinct things if you know what to look for that are really tricky to fake. Now if you go back to when those videos first appeared I'd even say it was not possible to fake at the level they did at that time.
I am saying this as someone who thinks it is completely possible Kubrick was involved in faking the early moon landing stuff.
EDIT 3: I thought I'd give you an example of sustained vs single bomb.
Let's say I have a heavy hammer, and a really heavy hammer. Let's say I have a big cement wall.
If I hit that cement wall with the really heavy hammer once. It will do some damage.
If I were to only hit the cement wall with the heavy hammer (not the really heavy one) one time. It would obviously do less damage.
However, if I were to hit the wall with the heavy hammer many times then at some point the amount of damage I do is going to exceed the damage of the really heavy hammer.
apply this to Dresden and Tokyo and I have no doubt you are correct. Yet that does not disprove the atomic bomb anymore than beating a wall repeatedly with a heavy hammer disproves the existence of a really heavy hammer.
I'm not trying to wind you up here and I can never type like you but do you see what you have just done?
Again - forth time - no evidence just a lot of words.
They did the fake bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they had a lot of wooden buildings - but even so they weren't flattened like "a really heavy hammer"
Call this flat?
Name the location of a detonation - you say there are photos and videos - prove it by posting one!
The videos are as appallingly bad as you would expect for the time - a ROLFLMAO joke - which is why youtube censor them all as fast as they can
Read what I wrote again. I never said the really heavy hammer would flatten anything. I said it would do more damage than a heavy hammer. Yet repeated blows from a heavy hammer would do more damage than a single blow from a really heavy hammer.
The earliest ones I have found were black and white. Those and even the video from the image you provided have aspects beyond any video special effects we have even created today.
The artifacts you would expect to find, etc. They are not present in those images.
Dresden and Tokyo were leveled by multitudes of bombs which resulted in repeated blows into the same areas over and over again.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both a single bomb. The level of destruction the single bomb accomplishes is way beyond what we could do with a single bomb of any other kind. It also did not match the damage from repeated bombing runs which you helpfully provided.
It does match what you might expect from a single point of origin blasting outwards with decreasing strength from the epicenter as a single tremendous blast.
I think you spend a little too much time thinking every single thing you hear is a conspiracy. Some of them are, though many of them are not. ;)
No evidence #5...
Now look at that photo of Nagasaki again - it has not been destroyed by a "nuclear" bomb has it?
"Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both a single bomb"
How on earth can you prove that - from news reports? LOL...
I did this on Steemit two years ago and was flooded with evidence back then :)
I did make 3 cents though!
https://steemit.com/life/@sift666/atomic-bombs-are-a-complete-con-job-they-don-t-even-exist
Well I know you. Anything that is sufficient proof for me, would likely be insufficient for you. ;) Thus, it is on you.
See another fake vid at 2:35 -