... these posts were essentially removed from a nukelies thread. I'll quote them here in case someone says I'm being nasty etc.
Ah. I see my post was moved again from Science, Maths etc.
I'd recommend anyone serious to look at http://www.nukelies.org (incidentally we've added a multilingual outreach thing with machine translations - they sometimes attract casual googlers. We included e.g. Azerbaijani, Latvian, Hindi... I hadn't known Georgian has its own Hobbit-like script). I think it's having some effect - we've had a couple of views from Hiroshima - I hope their tourist industry isn't too worried.
The meat of the site is arranged as nuclear bomb myths (past), and nuclear bomb myths (future), the latter dealing with escape strategies they're trying to use to phase out supposed bombs - Ward Wilson of the 'Monterey Insitute' is an interesting example of the way past 'facts' are diluted and adjusted. There's also obviously a section on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and one on science/ technology.
____________________________
Anyway I want to reply specifically to three complainants, ApolloGnomon, Ranb, and Dinwar.
ApolloGnomon appears to be an unemployed graduate in - I think anthropology. He posted a series of comments on the 'moon landings'. There are of course countless arguments against these, but specifically biological ones, such as problems with food, water, oxygen, temperature, and excretion, haven't been common. (As far as I know). Thus it would have made sense for NASA to build a vacuum chamber, equip it with heating and lighting equivalent to the sun on the moon, and instal something like cooling walls to simulate the effects of deep space. Then the 'astronauts' could go out in their suits and backpack into the vacuum chamber and live for a few days. If they were serious, NASA would of course have done this. ApolloGnomon simply continued to quote or paste material claiming e.g. NASA had tests done on fabric. In short, he's a timewaster.
RanB is a different type of spammer. He typed a few dozen posts, which are still on the site, though he doesn't show as the author on searching. (Search for Ranb in content). He's one of these irritating spammers who supplies nothing new, nothing referenced, nothing substantial. He wasted time for example on the Ferebee bombsight issue, which FirstClassSkeptic researched, and proved there was only a 50% chance of even getting near Hiroshima.
Here are two specimen postings by 'Ranb'Re: NASA - to what extent was/is this a Jewish fraud?
I have examined the evidence, the Apollo moon landings were real. Therefore it was not a fraud, much less a jewish run fraud. Every piece of "evidence" that a person has brought forward as an Apollo hoax has been inadequate. What is your best evidence?
Ranb
I see nothing convincing that an atomic bomb was not used. Why do you believe this?
Ranb
Ranb is another timewaster, of the sort that JREF encourage because they aren't interested in serious debate.
Dinwar says somewhere that the facts have been known for over half a century or something similar, implying that it's unreasonable to ask for something new from contributors. In point of fact it is not true that all the facts are known. And what's important also is interpretation. For example, I doubt whether the financing arrangements of the Manhattan Project by Alexander Sachs have been made public. I doubt whether archival information is available about Stalin's decisions to invade (or not) Europe and Japan after the announcement of 'nuclear weapons'. I doubt whether the experiment supposedly causing Einstein to write to FDR has been replicated - the evidence suggests it is highly suspect, since for example some of the experiments took weeks and any temperature rise must have been hard to measure, and such products as supposedly barium would be difficult to detect. Similarly the orders followed by US occupation forces in Japan as regards censorship are unlikely to be available. Just a few of a multiplicity of problems.
Frenat, [Note: e.g. 'And join and comment if you have something original to say. - In other words, post if you want to support their silly ideas. Otherwise you'll be banned. There's no room for actual discussion of differing viewpoints on that forum ] I understand your puzzlement over original ideas - presumably you've never had any, so it's not a request you could understand.
As for testing euqipment in a moon-like environment, well, the theory was this was to be a new achievement unlike anything attempted before. Now, for example pilots use what are called flight simulator - I don't know if you've heard of them - which try to realistically simulate what a plane or other craft would be like to handle. If someone's being sent out to a hostile terrain unlike anything ever attempted, it seems reasonable enough to test the whole thing, including the burdens imposed on the crew.
sts60 [Note: sts60 claimed (It so happens I personally participated in spacecraft thermal vac testing in the very same chamber in the '90s, so I am reasonably familiar with said facility.) though he disappointingly added nothing] after a bit of googling on Chamber B and 'thermovacuum testing' I found just these two stills on the NASA website. Both captioned Astronaut Neil Armstrong during thermovacuum training, and both dated 1969-05-07; are they convincing proof of thorough training?-- [pictures as in the piece on NASA and vacuums]
I don't personally find those very convincing. However you're claiming to have been there (or something). Maybe you could explain whether the 'astronaut' equipment was tested over several days, for example? Or maybe you have more information.
Craig4 [Note: That's because there's no science here, just some silly little whackado conspiracy theory. Now then, can you place a fleet of bombers attacking Hiroshima on August 6 1945? If not, could you please then produce evidence of a weapon in the Allied inventory that if two were expended would inflict the same damage as is was caused by the atomic bomb? .... etc] there's plenty of scientific, and historical, information on the site. It would need you to read it, though.
Dancing David [Note: ... I decided to check the thread today after a hiatus, and guess what you are still unable to present evidence. That is sad, so what does your smoke detector use to detect smoke particles? ] - you don't seem able to distinguish different hypotheses. It's possible that radioactive isotopes exist, but that nuclear weapons can't work. It's possible that accidents can happen which are not nuclear-related. It's possible that the function of some installation is not as popularly understood. It's possible a lot of heat may be generated, but a thing won't explode.
