Nuclear weapons don't exist.

[Hughe]

NUCLEAR WEAPONS DON'T EXIST The New Documentary By Edmund Matthews

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jo7Ytg9ckC0

Converting mass into pure energy exists only in theory. In natural condition I doubt it. The conversion ratio of mass to energy in a nuclear bomb is very low, probably less than 1% to 2 %. Pure energy don't produce the Mushroom cloud.

The Case Against the Nuclear Atom by Dewey B. Larson

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=whLZyflYSqw

The Case Against the Nuclear Atom (http://library.rstheory.org/books/cana)

Dewey B. Larson

North Pacific Publishers
P.O. Box 13255
Portland, Oregon 97213

Copyright © 1963 by Dewey B. Larson. All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 62-22268

Second Printing, October, 1963

Printed in United States of America by
Theo. Gaus’ Sons, Inc., Brooklyn 1, N.Y.

[mosquito]

Posted by Hughe (here)
NUCLEAR WEAPONS DON'T EXIST.

Maybe you could go and tell that to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear they've being living under a delusion for the last 70 years.

[KiwiElf]

Posted by mosquito (here)

Posted by Hughe (here)
NUCLEAR WEAPONS DON'T EXIST.

Maybe you could go and tell that to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear they've being living under a delusion for the last 70 years.

"Mr Matthews" can't even pronounce "nuclear" properly (what's a "nucular"???) Not to mention,... recent NUCLEAR tests in N Korea, uncountable tests done in the Nevada desert, Moruroa Atoll (by the French), US, China, India, UK, Russia, Pakistan etc.....

Mr Matthews... HUHLOOOO - is anybody IN there???


- the list of REAL nuclear tests is enormous - see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._weapons_tests

The PDF attachment was written in 1963 - I believe nuclear science & knowledge has progressed a "tad" from then???

[Ellisa]

And tests at Woomera in Australia by the Brits. They have since had to pay out people whose health was damaged in those tests--- including Aborigines whose native lands, as well as the people themselves, were ruined by the explosions.

Personally I think Edmund Matthews is either delusional or a sensationalist, or possibly both. Note that the UK appears in the list--- but the damage was done mainly in Australia. The area is still cordoned off in some places.

[KiwiElf]

Posted by Ellisa (here)
And tests at Woomera in Australia by the Brits. They have since had to pay out people whose health was damaged in those tests--- including Aborigines whose native lands, as well as the people themselves, were ruined by the explosions.

Personally I think Edmund Matthews is either delusional or a sensationalist, or possibly both. Note that the UK appears in the list--- but the damage was done mainly in Australia. The area is still cordoned off in some places.

Yeeees... I've filed it in the same place as the FE believers... (the RUBBISH BIN )

"...I'm no longer interested in why people are stupid, I'm just interested in the fascinating new ways people have chosen to be stupid..."

[transiten]

Now all sorts of "Mercury having been retrograde now stationary" disinformation is popping up on Avalon. Please don't believe anything you read on conspiration theories even if that term is being misused and demonized.

[Wind]

This makes as much sense as the Flat Earth theory does.

I just noticed that KiwiElf already said the same thing here, oh well...

[Agape]

Nuclear reactions occur even spontaneously in nature and we owe an existence of current 'shape of things' , the Sun , this very planet and shape of the Universe to many nuclear reactions .
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...estern-africa/

Why do you think the Sun keeps shining on you ?

Proof ... neutrinos ...

10 trillion neutrinos pass through you every second!

But don't go too close.

[Hervé]

Conveniently omitted in that Edmund Matthews' video: EMPs!

[Sierra]

Count of every nuclear explosion on Earth (I'm surprised the US West Coast is not radiating blue...):

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dGFkw0hzW1c

[Wind]

I do wonder how much damage those nuclear epxlosions have caused to this planet, animals and humans?
Do people still wonder about the high cancer rates?

Humans should have never split the atom... But after all, we are creatures equipped with ridicuously high amounts of curiosity and insanity too.

[PurpleLama]

It is entirely plausible that the operation of such nuclear devices may actually be ruled by a very different physics than that according which publicly disclosed science is seen to operate. The physics of Dewey Larson is quite interesting when separated from the sensationalist claim of the OP that such devices do not exist.

[PurpleLama]

I'm halfway through the first chapter of the pdf of Larson's book, and it's an excellent read so far.

[KiwiElf]

Can we conclude that Mr Matthews has (a) a warped sense of humour, or (b) the intelligence of a bean sprout?
NOTE: Hughe aptly placed this in the "Known Hoaxes and Other Bad Info" category

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Hughe (here)
NUCLEAR WEAPONS DON'T EXIST The New Documentary By Edmund Matthews

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jo7Ytg9ckC0

This thread got off on the wrong foot, in my view, and as such serves as (an unfortunately) excellent example of how not to start a thread.

The first video, above, has a misleading title. The video does almost nothing to support the claim that nuclear weapons don't exist. Do not just blindly copy Youtube thread titles to Avalon thread titles.

===

I listened to the entire video (though my mind might have wandered a bit here and there), and my take is that about the only evidence actually provided that discredits the official nuclear weapon story is comparisons of the firebombing during World War II of some cities in Germany and Japan, with the (officially reported) nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A decent circumstantial case is made that the damage to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was more likely caused by conventional fire bombing, not a single nuclear bomb.

The rest of the lengthy video is essentially replays of existing official video clips of the nuclear weapon testing that the US and other nations conducted in the decades following World War II, with the addition of a some skeptical comments by the narrator (Edmund Matthews, I presume), and with poor attention to keeping the audio levels consistent, making listening a chore.

That is NOT what I would call a demonstration that nuclear weapons don't exist. The title that Edmund Matthews gave his new (new sometime on or before May 2011, based on the earliest reference I have) documentary was misleading sensationalism. Such an extraordinary claim requires some attention to detail, some care with accuracy, and some extraordinary evidence. Such is lacking.

Then this was compounded by posting, this as the opening material, and source for thread title, as a thread on Avalon. No apparent research was done to investigate whether the video supported the extraordinary claim in its (misleading) title, and no attempt was made to properly title this thread to reflect the real content of that video.

Such tossing of misleading material onto the Avalon forum is a regrettable waste of our time. Please don't do that!

===

The first substantive sentence in the opening post is further confusion. It reads:

Converting mass into pure energy exists only in theory. In natural condition I doubt it. The conversion ratio of mass to energy in a nuclear bomb is very low, probably less than 1% to 2 %. Pure energy don't produce the Mushroom cloud.

This sentence seems to me take the position that nuclear bombs could not produce mushroom clouds because only a small portion of the mass is converted to energy. It presumes that only more or less 100% conversion of mass to energy would work for a real nuclear explosion.

That's nonsense. What matters, at least according to conventional nuclear physics, is that the small portion of the mass that's converted to energy, in and of itself, is sufficient energy to make an enormous explosion. The well known formula is E = mc2 (Energy equals mass times the speed of light, C, squared). The speed of light, C, is really fast, and the speed of light squared is really, really big. Just a small amount of mass (according to conventional nuclear physics) makes a lot of energy.

Quoting such a nonsensical claim, as if it conclusively proved that nuclear bombs could not exist, demonstrates, in my view, an inadequate understanding of what one is posting, insufficient to open a useful discussion.

Please research and make a good faith effort to understand what you are posting here, especially when opening a thread on a new and controversial topic.

===

Unfortunately, in my (idiosyncratic) view, there actually is a potentially significant story behind this topic. It is pretty clear to me, and probably not that controversial, to observe that the threat of a nuclear holocaust was a major source of "fear porn" during the Cold War, and the threat of nuclear weapons in Iraq or Iran, or of a nuclear EMF attack taking out America's electrical infrastructure continues to be harped on for its fear potential.

What's far more controversial is the possibility that this might be (yet another) massive hoax. Miles Mathis, an idiosyncratic artist and conspiracy theorist, has investigated this further, and gathered some interesting evidence that the photographic evidence provided us of the nuclear tests during the Cold War are fabricated images. This does not, so far as I know, demonstrate that there were no nuclear bombs. It does provide good evidence that what we were told and shown of these bombs, whatever they might have been if anything, was false information. This should not surprise us ... it is normally the case, in my experience, that what we are told of highly secret projects is almost always some sort of B.S. concoction.

You can read Miles Mathis analysis in two of his papers: http://mileswmathis.com/trinity.pdf and http://mileswmathis.com/bikini.pdf .

Personally, I read and enjoyed these papers when they were published, as I eagerly read all of Miles work. But he's really weird, and I don't usually have the time or energy that it would take to present one of his highly unconventional analyses here in a way that could lead to a good discussion. Miles presents far more evidence than Edmund Matthews presents, however, in support of the hypothesis that what we were told of the nuclear arsenals and testing by the major nations during the Cold War was fabricated fear mongering.

As is usually the case, in such major propaganda operations, peeling the onion to figure out what really happened is not easy, and often beyond the means of one or two individuals working on their own.

However the mishandling of the opening portions of the first post of this thread, built on the misleadingly presented and titled, several year old, documentary of Edmund Matthews, pretty much ruined any chance of having a fruitful discussion of Miles Mathis controversial, but at least well documented, analysis of these matters.

==

In summary:

• Please research what you post here, especially as the opening material on a topic of potential substance.
• Please do not just copy the Youtube title to the Avalon thread title. Understand what the material actually contains, and use that understanding as a basis for the Avalon thread title.
• If presenting a new and controversial perspective, that flies in the face of what is likely the current view of most well informed Avalon members, take the extra effort that will be required to start a productive discussion and that respects the likely held views of most readers.

[Mutchie]

Posted by Hughe (here)
NUCLEAR WEAPONS DON'T EXIST The New Documentary By Edmund Matthews

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jo7Ytg9ckC0

Converting mass into pure energy exists only in theory. In natural condition I doubt it. The conversion ratio of mass to energy in a nuclear bomb is very low, probably less than 1% to 2 %. Pure energy don't produce the Mushroom cloud.

The Case Against the Nuclear Atom by Dewey B. Larson

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=whLZyflYSqw

The Case Against the Nuclear Atom (http://library.rstheory.org/books/cana)

Dewey B. Larson

North Pacific Publishers
P.O. Box 13255
Portland, Oregon 97213

Copyright © 1963 by Dewey B. Larson. All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 62-22268

Second Printing, October, 1963

Printed in United States of America by
Theo. Gaus’ Sons, Inc., Brooklyn 1, N.Y.

Hughe my friend youtube is awash with DISINFORMATION AT THE MOMENT .... some of it done quite cleverly ....some of it NOT

I urge you to be careful because me myself have fallen into certain subjects it is very easy to do anyway you have a nice day my friend.

We must protect our forum from the onslaught of NOISE its everywhere on the net thankfully our Mods are well AWARE of this.

[DSKlausler]

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
It is entirely plausible that the operation of such nuclear devices may actually be ruled by a very different physics than that according which publicly disclosed science is seen to operate. The physics of Dewey Larson is quite interesting when separated from the sensationalist claim of the OP that such devices do not exist.

Good morning,

I request that you simply remember that we have been lied to for centuries... millennia even.

This will take more than five seconds of browsing - if you wish to understand the basis for the claim.

This is not light reading.

NUCLEAR explosions were faked; conventional explosives in massive quantities is probable.

http://forum.antiquatis.org/viewtopi...roshima#p11988

Connecting links to Miles Mathis.

Also, if you're not familiar, Clues Forum has the subject covered as well.
http://cluesforum.info

Speaking of Dewey Larson:
http://reciprocalsystem.org/

I am simply offering information, do with it what you will.

Sincerely,

Dave

[Ernie Nemeth]

After watching the Larson video and reading the book (half done), I must say my frustration levels are mounting again. This guy makes a lot of sense.

Seems even our high science, the science of physics, has been a misleading and mismanaged endeavor by well-meaning but incompetent, ego-driven, mind-washed dupes. Sorry Mr. Rutherford, but your peers did not check your work and then lesser men accepted your theory that did not match the facts and data of later researchers. As a result, today we have a hodgepodge of modifiers to keep the standard model afloat.

To this day, physicists insist the universe is grainy, with every phenomena and every force conveyed by tiny particles in an endless stream of particles. But there is one phenomenon that refuses to be pigeon-holed by a particle: the ether. What do particles ride on? What supports the structure of reality? These are questions that Einstein, in one fell swoop removed from consideration stating that the ether does not exist. With that pesky irritant set-aside Einstein's famous equation could arise. But without the ether, Einstein's theory accounts for only 4% of the observable universe. And so the state of physics today - employing a faulty model and forcing it to fit the facts by adding to the model modifiers that turn the model back on course every time a new bit of data contradicts it and that finally does not describe reality as it is at all.

I rejected chemistry in grade nine, and physics in grade ten. I might have been wrong about chemistry but not about physics. Schooling quickly became anathema to me as I realized early that politics enters science just as much as any other area of our lives - and money votes which theory and which researcher will get the accolades.

[Nick Matkin]

Posted by DSKlausler (here)

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
It is entirely plausible that the operation of such nuclear devices may actually be ruled by a very different physics than that according which publicly disclosed science is seen to operate. The physics of Dewey Larson is quite interesting when separated from the sensationalist claim of the OP that such devices do not exist.

Good morning,

I request that you simply remember that we have been lied to for centuries... millennia even.

This will take more than five seconds of browsing - if you wish to understand the basis for the claim.

This is not light reading.

NUCLEAR explosions were faked; conventional explosives in massive quantities is probable.

http://forum.antiquatis.org/viewtopi...roshima#p11988

Connecting links to Miles Mathis.

Also, if you're not familiar, Clues Forum has the subject covered as well.
http://cluesforum.info

Speaking of Dewey Larson:
http://reciprocalsystem.org/

I am simply offering information, do with it what you will.

Sincerely,

Dave

None of that explains the generation of an EMP in a massive conventional explosion - mainly becasue it's impossible.

So equipment that has been destroyed by the EMP from a fake nuclear explosion - how did that happen?

You see - all nonsense.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Nick Matkin (here)
None of that explains the generation of an EMP in a massive conventional explosion - mainly becasue it's impossible.

So equipment that has been destroyed by the EMP from a fake nuclear explosion - how did that happen?

You see - all nonsense.

I do not have reliable information as to what EMP generation or equipment destruction occurred in the reported nuclear bomb tests. Of course, I do not trust the official reports on such matters.

Nor do I claim that these reported tests were only conventional explosions. I don't know what they were, or to what extent they really happened.

I see substantial evidence that what we were told was part of a propaganda effort to whip up fear, and that what they did show and tell us was fabricated and duplicitous.

There is a fundamental difference between knowing you're being lied to, and knowing what is the truth of the matter.

Oh - and conventional explosions can be used in the production of EMP's. See, as one example of doubtlessly many, Non-nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse Generation. So it's not "impossible" .