You switched to claiming the flashes were from Helium when I pointed out that Lithium doesn’t have any blue emission lines at all, and actually ionizes a distinct red color. And then you added the ‘low pressure’ claim when I showed you images of ionized Helium glowing reddish-orange.
You haven’t substantiated the low pressure part of the claim at all. You also haven’t addressed the fact that may of the elements not in the lower 19 glow blue when ionized (for example, Krypton, element 36, makes a lovely blue glow). Since many elements not in the lower 19 glow blue, and many in the lower 19 don’t, in what sense are blue flashes ‘characteristic of the lower 19 elements of the periodic table’?
For reference, this page has an table of the elements showing the flame colors of many of them:
You’ll notice that there is no overall trend for elements in the lower 19 to glow blue. Interestingly enough, there is a trend for elements on the right side of the chart to have more blue than elements on the left side of the chart.
More importantly, you haven’t explained how the material the bomb is made from can have any noticeable effect on the color of the mushroom cloud, when the bomb material is a parts-per-million contaminant of the cloud, which is actually made up almost entirely of superheated air. You also haven’t explained how blue glow from the ionization of the bomb materials can be distinguished from blue glow from ionization of atmospheric nitrogen.
In a book about David Irving’s trial called “The Holocaust on Trial” by D D Guttenplan, the author describes this style of thinking as “crazed positivism”. I like the expression. It captures something of why CTers are convinced they are thinking “logically”. Citing van Pelt, one of the authors of reports that undid Irving’s claims, Guttenplan notes “The assumption that the discovery of one little crack will bring the whole building down is the fundamental fallacy of Holocaust Denial”. The principle applies to CTs and grandiose discoveries in general.
It is a consequence of positivism that it only takes one piece of contrary evidence to disprove a theory. That principle works for theories like “all swans are white”, which is exploded by the production of a black one. What that reasoning fails to observe is that not all evidence is of equal quality. Sometimes the evidence in support of a theory is more than mere accumulated observations of only white swans. Sometimes it is rationally easier to say that the supposed contrary evidence is just wrong. And typically CTers undervalue the power of negative evidence - evidence that would be expected to be seen if they are right, but isn’t. They typically rely on special pleading to try to make this problem go away. The real skill in this sort of inquiry is distinguishing signal from noise, not selectively treating some particular piece of evidence as though it is a trump card in a game of intellectual bridge.
Thus, it takes more than one or two supposed witnesses to demonstrate that, hidden to history, there were multiple nuclear explosions in Europe in the early 1940s, at a time when such things would have been among the most remarkable and visible events in the whole of human existence on the planet.
Adding to this crazed positivism is a sort of crazed technophilia (my expression, not Guttenplan’s). This is the belief that highly technical evidence carries more weight, because it seems to have a greater air of black-and-white certainty about it. It can be reduced to impressive-seeming numbers. It seems more “scientific”. But that does not mean it is better. Thus, in holocaust denier circles, the canard is advanced that there is not enough Zyklon B penetration into the walls of the gas chambers to be consistent with the amount of Zyklon B used there, therefore no holocaust took place. This sounds superficially impressive, like it is straight out of CSI. But of course it is based on hidden false assumptions if it is not an outright lie.
And this technophilia is behind all the microanalysis and over-interpretation of little bits of twisted metal at Ground Zero, camera lenses on the moon, and ionisation colours of light elements. The illusory promise of certainty outweighs sense. The overwhelmingly compelling observations that if the moon landing was a hoax or if multiple nuclear bombs had been detonated in Europe before August 1945, then a whole bunch of things would follow, and we don’t see those things, can’t be reduced to a number. But the conclusion to be drawn is compelling nevertheless. CTers’ focus on tiny details leaves them with a huge intellectual blind spot.
Sometimes there are big historical paradigm shifts. When the first public discussion of the Ultra secret started, a lot of people were very hesitant to believe it. We’d been reading Hitler’s mail? We knew Hitler’s plans (or at least quite a few of them?) Astonishing! The implications are vast. How was the secret kept?
But the difference between that revelation and this one (Nazi nukes) is that the evidence was real, widely available, corroborated, and, when one took the time to look at it, it made sense. The initial reaction of skepticism was perfectly reasonable – and evaporated quickly under the huge amount of solid evidence.
What do we have here? Grainy pictures of old typewritten pages. No corroboration. No confirmation. No context. And blatant contradiction to known facts and to any possible rational conclusions from the hypothesis.
History CAN be revised by later discoveries, and sometimes in a highly dramatic fashion. This isn’t one of those times.
as I have stated previously during 1944 under marshal law all German civililians were under curfew and required to report at night to public shelters…
There are perfectly good reasons why in a remote part of Germany overrun by Soviet troops who killed and raped civilians why other witnesses wouldnot come to light.
Against which there are several compelling threads of evidence including official US government intelligence files kept classified after the war which clearly state the existence of German atomic weapons.
What is being concealed here is not the weapons themselves but the secret negotiations between USA and the Nazi administration in 1944 which prevented their use, kept secret because of Cold War rivalries.
If they were kept classified, how do you know what they said or what they were about?
The weapons have been doing an amazing job of concealing themselves if nobody was keeping them secret, seeing that there is zero credible evidence that they ever existed. I’m sure you feel you’ve presented credible evidence, but you’re the only one who thinks that. Perhaps you should do some soul searching as to why that is that doesn’t rely on a delusion that everyone else is sheeple who just can’t see the truth that you do; I can assure you that you’re alone in that untrue belief as well.
Tests were alleged to have been performed on the Bug peninsula 8km from Drankse. In 2010 when I last checked there were two water filled craters there contaminated with Caesium 137. The Bug peninsula has been a closed military reserve since WW2, however upon checking the location with Google Earth I now discover that a man made channel has been dredged to the largest crater allowing the tides to flush it. The other crater previously on this site appears now to have been filled in.
Samples have been taken from there and tested in 2006 by PTB which confirmed the radiation but not the source.
You are aware aren’t you that the British declassified duplicate WW2 records on Nazi Nuclear efforts in the early 1980s forcing the United States to follow?
Had the British never revealed their records much would still be unknown
I’m guessing this is a horribly garbled reference to the coordinated declassification in the early Nineties, following pressure in the UK and the probable existence of such records and part of their contents having been known since the Sixties, of both the UK and US copies of the Operation Epsilon reports, which were based on eavesdropping the German nuclear scientists detained in the UK in 1945.
While the significance of these reports has been much argued over - and I’ve written at length about that debate on the Dope over the years - it’d be sheer incompetence to suggest that they “clearly state the existence of German atomic weapons”. Regardless of how they’re otherwise interpreted, the bugged arguments amongst the German scientists at Farm Hall in 1945 are blatantly about why there weren’t such German weapons.
Well, if all that is answered all that’s left is the simple question of why nobody authoritative in all the countries of the world over the past seven decades, having the gigantic incentive to prove a) the technical skills of the Nazis or b) the absolute evil of the Nazis or c) the wrongness of all historical accounts or d) the lies that were the testimony of German atomic scientists or e) a means of producing atomic bombs that any small group today would use in preference to the national projects still needed or f) the guaranteed certainty of worldwide headlines wouldn’t have spilled the beans.
You know who Hans Zinsser reminds me of? Kenneth Arnold. A competent, experienced, sober pilot who saw something. But the reports of what he saw correlated with nothing real. So people started making up stuff about what they must *really *be.
I’ll believe in Nazi atomic bombs exactly when you show me the truth about flying saucers.