[FirstClassSkeptic]

Your style might reach people that my style won't. Or that someone else's style won't. You just can't tell what will click in someone else's head. Some might question why in sixty years, there has never been another nuclear blast, or even an accident. I think a lot of people are wondering that.

You just have to keep searching for the door into people's minds. And since people are distracted by many things these days, it's hard to get a person's attention. It's trial and error, so just keep trying.

The nuclear reactor in Japan has people's attention for the moment. That might be a good starting point. "Will it explode?" Ask people, "Are you worried that it might explode?" Build from there, and explain why it won't. That's just one way.

[rerevisionist]

TVOW - you asked for comments. And it was you who posted a thread some time ago about spelling. If you can't take the heat...

[TVOW]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[NUKELIES]

None of us are qualified or experienced enough to say weather a nuclear explosion is possible or not.

Qualified? I qualify myself. No use sitting on the fence TVOW.

[TVOW]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[mooninquirer]

Lots of issues here, but I'll pick the one defending Jesse's claim. This is where the moon landing being a hoax is very relevant. One cannot hide behind any kind of "snob appeal," claiming that since no physicist has published an article that the moon landings are a hoax, that the rest of us are unqualified. The fact is that physics professors say very strongly that the moon landing was a hoax, along with many other professors. That has been MY experience, and I cannot be the only one.

I would say that that we can say nuke bombs are a hoax, using the already accepted experimental facts and theories of physics --- I am including all of classical, and all of modern physics. We can build a case that there existence does not fit in with anything else. This is similar to realizing that the moon landing is a hoax BECAUSE you do not see evidence of one-sixth gravity in the Apollo footage. We must then decide whether to believe NASA, or to believe science.

Nuke bombs are NOT science, because they have not been independently reproduced, which is a requirement for an experimental result to be considered valid by the scientific community. Note that nobody has won the Nobel Prize for nuke bombs, and they are not mentioned as examples either. For example, there isn't a Nobel citation saying something like, " for his work on nuclear fission, as can be seen in nuclear bombs."

The snob appeal argument just does NOT apply, because a well regarded saying in physics is that one does not really understand a theory in physics if he cannot explain it to a barmaid ( i.e., the average person ). Many great physicists have stated the importance of explaining something in plain language, or at least explaining something in terms of ALL of the known parameters and theories surrounding the thing to be explained.

For example, propagandists shamelessly rely upon these diagrams of a nuclear fission chain reactions, THAT ARE NOT DRAWN TO SCALE ( and they know this ). There is a nucleus about one centimeter in diameter, and just inches away are other nuclei. But the reality is, that the spacing would be far, FAR more sparse than that, because if the nucleus where one centimeter in diameter, the whole atom would be at least the size of Yankee stadium. This is based on the famous experiment by Lord Rutherford, for which he won the Nobel Prize, called the gold foil experiment. There is a lot of theory of physics about the radius of nuclei, versus the radius of atoms. So ANY science teacher and physics professor KNOWS that these diagrams showing a chain reaction are VERY misleading.

When I raised questions like this, with the query, "I understand why it would get hot, but I do not understand why it would explode," I have had two high school science teachers, a university physics professor, and physics graduate students saying I have a good point. I was a little taken aback by these unexpected responses. I have to assume that they themselves have thought the very same questions that I have thought. One of these high school teachers said much more boldly, " some people say it is a hoax," when he couldn't explain why a thermonuclear bomb would explode ---- and he was looking very carefully at a diagram in a science museum, while he was on paid time during a science club field trip. And when I asked, all I wanted to do was to UNDERSTAND the physics behind it ---- I had no intention of being a conspiracy theorist, and I had no prejudicial opinion that nuke bombs were a hoax, and I just assumed that what the media says and standard history is true.

( In the case of thermonuclear or H-bombs bombs, I do not even understand why it would get hot, because even assuming the fission bomb explodes, all it would do is just blow away and scatter the lithium hydride, instead of squishing the nuclei together. )

[TVOW]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[rerevisionist]

These latter emails deal with the essence of the overview problem - but aren't connected really to the question of the power of almost all of TVOW's video script!

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Ok, TVOW, you are correct in your assessment: I am totally unqualified to comment on nuclear physics, or even much on macro physics. I have no physics degree, but just a couple semesters of college physics. Never got much into relativity.

However, TVOW, I assert that I have run a crane. I have sat at the controls, pulls all those levers, and lifted heavy things into the air. I watched them swing, and twirl, and oscillate.

Now, what does that do for me? Well, when I watch Ed White coming out of his Geminii space capsule, I can see that he is swinging, twirling, and oscillating just like he was hanging from a crane. Or, that would be, a wire. And I feel confident that I could show that video to a hundred thousand crane operators all around North America, and Europe, and ask them, "Does it look like he's hanging from a crane?" and most would say, "Yes".

So think of this as a short circuit. Or a short cut. I have taken a short cut around all of the complicated physics and mathematics of space travel, and just have merely seen that the Ed White space walk is a phoney.

The same sort of process applies to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I can look at pictures of Tokyo, and compare them to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and see that whatever happened at one place, happened at all three places.

If they could really do it, why would they fake it?

[NUKELIES]

I have taken a short cut around all of the complicated physics and mathematics of space travel, and just have merely seen that the Ed White space walk is a phoney.

If they could really do it, why would they fake it?

Two EXCELLENT and necessary points Skeptic. The truth is obvious. Specialists think they can derive the big picture from details, and perhaps they can, but it is a hell of a lot easier and quicker to cut through the shit and decipher the truth.

Why would they fake it? Because they are lying.

[TVOW]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[FirstClassSkeptic]

The test footage is purely for propaganda purposes it has nothing really to do with the science that may or ,may not have been going on. Besides Nuclear war with mega explosions was never part of their plan, only creating fear with it, such weapons would be as much a threat to them as everyone else.

The 'them' you are talking about are psychopaths, who would love to be able to destroy nations at a touch of a button. The 'thems' have already dug underground bunkers, and stocked them with food, for some reason. If the thems had nuclear weapons, they would have already destroyed all living things on earth by now. Except for themselves, of course.