The Trap of Dogma Lies in Wait for Us All...

avatar
(Edited)

When I refer to Dogma, I am speaking of the act of deciding something is unquestionable, unassailable, the absolute truth, etc. When stated so bluntly I suspect most of us immediately will state we do not like dogma. We will likely talk about how people should question everything.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that there may be a system in our minds that drives us to form these dogmatic thoughts. We tend to simplify things. We do so because it allows us to operate in a much more complicated fashion. I want to talk about this simplification first...

Consider how I referred to Dogma above as "unquestionable, unassailable, the absolute truth, etc." We simplify by giving that a label such as Dogma. Often we will further specify by giving something that has Dogmatic ideas that tend to revolve around understanding reality, and what fashion the creator/God(s) exist in as Religion. From that point on we can simply use the term religion.

Do you see how we take concepts and define them as something more simple and then we can use that simple version to then go on and think of larger thoughts? We do this because through simplification we create modular components of thought that can be combined to build other thoughts. We call these words. We can create new words that encompass other words and then use the new word in place of those words.

image.png

With this we can then construct larger things. If we did not have the ability to simplify we likely would not be able to achieve this in any timely fashion. Here is an example...

Instead of telling you that we need to build a house. If I could not simplify I'd need to be telling you we're going to mix water with mud and stir it. Then we are going to lay a line of stones like this and put the mud between the stones. We will let the mud dry some. Then we will put another line of stones above that and more mud around those stones. We will keep doing this until it is our height. At that point we will need to move some things into place to let us stand higher. We should repeat placing stones and mud until what we are building is as tall as if a half person stood on top of us.

image.png
(Image Source: aboutmurals.ca)

That is my example of telling you how to build one wall. Yet I still used some simplified terms. I referred to mud. Mud is a simplified term for wet dirt. Describing how to build a simple square house without being able to use simplified terms such as walls, windows, bricks, mortar, windows, door frame, door, roof, flooring, etc. would take a huge amount of time. Using those terms takes longer than simply saying house. We are able to convey thoughts rapidly due to the modular nature of our thinking.

This is quite amazing. Our mind adapts to new complex ideas and allows us to encapsulate them into something we can quickly use to represent that thing.


It sounds wonderful right?

Well it is. It is amazing. Yet it is not without risk.

Our mind naturally wants to simplify concepts. It enables us to solve problems that would be too large to understand without this ability. Yet when we are not speaking simply about physical concepts as in the example above and we start thinking about the future, and trying to predict and explain complex things that we cannot see and we only hold in our mind, then we have a danger.

When considering the mental environment we simplify and create new mental components for our mind to work with. Yet what happens when in the simplification of the mental components we leave out important factors because we were unaware of them? Now we have a brick wall with no mortar so to speak. We then go on to build more complex ideas with that simplified mental component with a flaw as a piece of even larger things. As the ideas get bigger and bigger we are farther removed from the fact that initial component was missing some things. Now we have a very complicated idea and something is going wrong. Yet we don't know why it is going wrong because while we are very good at simplifying. We are not particularly skilled at reversing the process.

In fact our mind seems to have mechanisms such as Cognitive Dissonance that kick in when something is not right with a complex idea (sometimes called a belief). Rather than helping us to see the flaw and adjust accordingly it instead helps us try to look for excuses, or ways to ignore the flaw. This resides in all of us. We can resist its effects by being alert to when it seems to be happening in us. That seems to be a key to shutting down our own cognitive dissonance. Becoming aware of it. Yet you will still fail at detecting it some times. You can just work on your own at getting better at noticing it so it may not keep you fixated on not being wrong.

image.png
(Image Source: sites.psu.edu)

This is present in all of us.


The Trap of Dogma

One of the things we do as part of our simplification process is identify people we consider better at certain things than ourselves. When things occur that these people are better at we will usually defer to their judgement. We treat them as an authority. Perhaps we call them an expert. Maybe we call them elite. Maybe we call them smart. This often works out well as probability tends to favor this. Yet it also can be an extreme flaw. It is an exploitable flaw by those that have the drive to control and manipulate others.

We also do not like being wrong generally speaking. Depending upon how important we consider something to be that we finally admit we were wrong about we may feel shame, anger, etc. If the being wrong turns out to be only because we trusted or put our faith in someone we considered an authority/expert on the subject then we will likely feel duped, betrayed, hatred, sadness, anger, etc. If we view it as a system of thought that was flawed we may react and assume that anything coming from that system was flawed. This can occur even if most of the system actually was correct. If one detail in that system was flawed and of something you considered fundamentally important you can lash out and declare the entire system as corrupt and wrong. Yet often that is not the case. One flaw does not make the entirety wrong in many systems. It points out a flaw that we need to resolve. If we can replace it with another system (model) that accomplished the same needs as the original but addresses that flaw then we should do so.

Yet the trap of dogma is that this is not usually what people seem to do.

They are convinced by something they observe, or something they have been told that makes sense to them. Perhaps they are told X is not possible. They trust the person who told them this so now they too are repeating that X is not possible. Yet the person that originally told them this could have been ignorant about some knowledge and X was indeed possible, they simply didn't know. They possibly had become accustomed to being told they were an expert so they stated the absolute of "not possible". They told others. Now others are spreading that it is not possible.

This path leads to dogma. The language of dogma resides in absolutes. Absolutes block challenge. Absolutes abide no questions. Absolutes imply certainty.

Never, Always, All, Every, Every time, Nothing, In All Cases, No One, Everyone, etc. These are the language of dogma.

Often we will run to them when something we thought was important shifted our world view. Yet in running to the absolutes we shut the door on challenge, and questioning.

Absolutes do exist. Yet they are not even remotely as common as their usage would make them seem. Sometimes people are simply exaggerating. Yet words have power. As we simplify complex ideas into single words when we use those words not everyone that hears or uses those words may understand them in the same way.


Examples of the trap...

A person encounters some videos and images on the internet of people claiming the world is flat and they have proof. They show videos and state how if the world were a globe this would not be possible. Then perhaps they'll show shafts of light coming a certain way through some clouds in a forest with some colors and say this too is not possible if the world is a globe. I actually have had this happen. I blinked and said "Have you ever heard of refraction?" It is something we can do easily and replicate. Some of us know exactly how that is possible.

image.png
(Image Source: newsweek.com)

People will drape their ignorance solidly around themselves and state because THEY don't know how a thing can occur that it is not possible. Sometimes they will say it simply because an EXPERT told them it was not possible when that expert themselves pushing their ignorance on a subject as fact. They couldn't appear ignorant about anything to those they were trying to convince.

That does not mean we should not listen to people when they point out a flaw. They could be correct. We simply should be warry when they start claiming what is and is not possible. The language of dogma often conceals the ignorance of the person speaking it.


Another case is when I encountered a person in this community we are in now years ago who is convinced nuclear bombs do not exist and that the videos we see of nuclear detonations are fabricated.

image.png
(Image Source: en.wikipedia.org)

I told him this was not the case because I happen to be well versed on how such videos would be faked. I know subtle techniques that reveal the fake if you know what to look for. In the case of nuclear explosions we are talking a very complex image with trillions (even more) of visible particles moving and interacting. To fake this convincingly we'd have to mimic that process. We do this in video games but we fake it by using different patterns that we rotate, scale, and color in different ways that we also confer motion to. We call this particle systems. If you've made enough of these like I have you know to look for the patterns and shapes used to make the individual particles. I have yet to have seen a movie sci-fi, modern, etc. using a thermonuclear explosion that I cannot see these things in.

image.png
(Image Source: youtube.com)

Now step back to the earlier videos from the 1940s and onward this technology did not exist. They instead used overlays, splicing in other imagery, etc. That technique is even easier to see than using complex particle systems of today.

image.png
(Image Source: rbth.com - 1948)

Even today with the tech we have faking those earlier videos to look like they did would be extremely time consuming as the only way we could convincingly pull it off would be by actually simulating a vast number of particles of small size. Furthermore we'd have to get the movement and planning just right. When I say vast... I mean so large in number that it would be very time consuming, and extremely expensive just to pull it off.

image.png
(Image Source: myhotposters.com)

Now to defend this dogma that nukes didn't go off and exist you can try to run to the "secret tech" and imply that they could do all of this in the 40s. Nah. I don't buy that. To me that enters the realm of what sometimes people call "magical thinking".


There are other examples of this that I see today. Seeing a flaw in some "scientific" theory and jumping to the conclusion that everything about that theory is wrong, and therefore this other theory must be correct. To me that is jumping from one dogma to another. Often both theories had aspects that may have been relevant. In trying to find the parts that make sense together we move forward. If we embrace dogma in this fashion we risk a ping pong type of situation of react to a flaw, bounce to another dogma, react to a flaw, bounce to another dogma.

Absolutes are the language of dogma. When I hear absolutes I immediately go into the red flag mode. "What do they want me to blindly believe?" "Who are they indicating I should trust, and who are they saying I should not trust?" Is it moving from the words of one authoritarian to simply blindly embrace the words of some other authoritarian?

This to me is not a path I wish to walk...

image.png
(Image Source: pinterest.com)

I want to parallel ideas from people and take what works for me and fits my life model best and keep walking. Hopefully my path takes me where I need to go. I do not want to blindly jump upon the same path as someone else and stop making my own choices.



0
0
0.000
33 comments
avatar

Good stuff. It's hard to break our minds of it's natural tendency. But once you do, you become much more "awake".

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I dub thee a Discordian Pope for the blasphemous catmas'
you've displayed in this post. You should be proud of yourself!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Not the first time I've been pointed in the Discordian direction. :)

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

The highest insight within Discordianism lay within the law of fives. And the law of fives is mainly just an exercise in quantum thinking or grid hopping. The law showcases the notion that "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves." We are both simultaneously, the thinker and the prover.

And this is kind of in the realm of cognitive bias but shouldn't be viewed that way. The reason for that is because it's impossible to attain an objective perspective. At the very best, we can only get subjectively objective, and that's, um, only close-ish depending on who is doing the measuring.

Eventually, you realize that objective truth cannot get obtained, and that will convey the knowledge that everyone is living in a false but true-ish subjective reality. We are living in a dream world that gets shaped and molded by our unique mathemagicⓀal equations.

And this is our life experience up to the present (gift) moment and beyond. When one experientially internalizes this knowing, they are then liberated to actively shape, mold, and bend reality as they see fit. The trick of the matter is, we do this all the time. We do it unknowingly, and we are doing it, in large part, to our disadvantage.

When we harness this knowledge and do it actively to our benefit, we become the exact opposite of this guy and more. The magick of the whirled is ready and waiting for those adventurous enough to wield it. I hope this helps! I would have made a horrible street magician because I cannot help but reveal the various illusions. Good luck to you! Embrace the delusion (reality) and create your desired illusions.

Robert Anton Wilson was a genius. He has many a great book on audible. I'd recommend starting with 'Prometheus Rising' or the 'Cosmic Trigger I and II.' One clip that I'd love to show you that I think will help showcase his genius is this one. I condensed all of this information as compact as possible just for you, DB!

Release your inner CHAOS MAGE!

Spoon = Reality, and for everyone, reality doesn't even real.
Tis why, many of us have up and decided to make it our own.

🙏

Ponder all of the above as catmatically as humanly possible for true liberation. QP

0
0
0.000
avatar

The person that steered me to Principia Discordia was I believe @alchemage if I properly remember his handle. He was responding to some of my posts about magic, ghosts, and the unknown. I shared a lot of my own philosophies I'd developed up to that point.

He pointed out that I was saying a lot of things that paralleled what the Discordians were saying.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Ahh, yes, alchemage is a fellow pope. I think he
hails (Eris) from the Temple of Appled Thought.
I've noticed you've innate quantum-think ability.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hail Erin!
Eris is on vacation.

0
0
0.000
avatar

That's it, you're officially
reunexcommunicated!
I jest, is that her sister?
If so, I'd tap that too!

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'll take whatever chips I can eat. 🙋
Erin is Eris' forgotten twin who takes her place when Eris gets tired. Only those with eyes can see the difference.

golden apple.jpg

0
0
0.000
avatar

Don't blame me! I'm just a mess-enger. :D

Good to see you again, @dwinblood - I had no idea you were posting again. I've been fairly inactive on chain as I'm getting ready to graduate, but I've been focused on developing the @naturalmedicine project with the LOTUS token and our frontend - naturalmedicine.io

After graduation I'll be taking a bit of time to myself, so I'll likely start posting more again. Always love your work!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Good to see you around. I stepped away myself for about two years.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I have read "Principia Discordia" after someone from my Steemit days steered me in that direction.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Very inspiring your text to give feedback on it. Thank you:) I apologize for the length, but maybe it can be consumed in parts.

We are not particularly adept at reversing the process.

Reversal is difficult, indeed. Perhaps an analogy can be applied here. A freely invented story, such as a tall tale told by someone in chronological order, is very difficult to tell backwards. Just to illustrate the difficulty of this endeavour, not because the analogy hits the mark.

Depending on how important we think something is that we eventually admit we were wrong about, we may feel shame, anger, etc.

I personally experience this as "feeling dumbed down". As a result, I feel shame or remorse. If I remain stuck in the feeling of shame, it is difficult for me to admit that I am wrong. I then defend my stupidity instead of admitting it with humour.

There are absolutes.

What examples can you give here?

I find it extremely exciting and enlightening to question the given. The more far-fetched the question seems, the more interesting I find it to pursue it myself. In fact, I have also asked myself whether there have ever been nuclear explosions. Why? Not because I doubt the event itself per se, but because I perceive the resulting world view as one that takes people hostage. When fear becomes the driving factor, the threat can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The perpetuation of threat scenarios can take on unimagined proportions.
But more interesting for me was the doubt: Can I know beyond doubt that there have been nuclear bombings? No, I can't. I think it is important to keep such things in the back of my mind, especially in the case of such powerful events.

Rupert Sheldrake is a man I enjoy listening to. Who listed the dogmas of science in one of his books and even took a close look at a subject like the speed of light.

Here, in this interview, he also comments on genetics in a very interesting way:

The human genome project was supposed to explain human nature in terms of genes, there were billions of dollars spent on it and everyone was saying it was going to be this total transformation of our world view, but actually it has led to a huge problem, the whole thing is crumbling. There is now something in the last 2 or 3 years, not widely known outside biology, something called the missing heritability problem. What they did was they took the genomes of 30.000 different people, they sequenced the entire DNA and got complete genomes of 30.000 people and then they looked to see how well they could predict things. They expected they could predict about 80% of what was going on in people from their genes. They started with height, height is easy to measure and we already know that tall parents tend to have tall children and short parents short children. And it’s already known that height is 80% heritable, which means you can predict with an accuracy of about 80% the height of children if you know the parents’ height; other thing being equal, assuming they are not starved or sick or something. Well, when they analyzed the genomes of 30.000 people and looked at their height, they found that out of these there were about 50 genes concerned with height and so they made a model to explain height in terms of these genes. Then they tried predicting people’s height just on the basis of these genes, not knowing the height of people, they were kept sort of hidden, then they tried to predict height on the basis of the genes and they found they could predict it with an accuracy of 5%. Now you can do it with an accuracy of 80%, just with a tape measure, measuring peoples’ height, and after spending billions of dollars, it turned out that the genome was getting predictive accuracies of only about 5% for those characteristics. So the difference between the 80% expected and the 5% achieved, there’s 75% that is missing. It’s called the missing heritability problem.

The further conversation on this is definitely worth reading.
Where he was probably too optimistic is in overestimating the counter forces towards the doggedness and penetration with which the pharmaceutical industry sought to conquer new markets. Where exorbitant sums were spent on research that ultimately brought nothing because the assumptions were not confirmed, it is the will that then pulls the market to itself on the basis of artificially generated messages. You do it the way you originally hoped for it and the way you need it. Even though no real scientific findings have resulted, wishful thinking must now serve as a substitute.

Questioning can be a very exhaustive and lonely path. I must bring myself regularly back into the flow of real life and balance my thinking with labor work. So I am glad that I am not the only one ;-)

0
0
0.000
avatar

What examples can you give here?

Black/white. Though interestingly how you achieve one or the other differs depending upon whether you are dealing with light, or pigments.

Death. It'll happen eventually.

Time. Not necessarily the speed as I have some interesting ideas about that. The fact that we will perceive it in some fashion or another is absolute.

I know every once in awhile I stumble across them. There are things I treat as absolutes that may not be. Thus by my UNQUESTIONABLE aspect of absolutes there is actually very little that is absolute to me.

If I remove the unquestionable and my absolutes are things that I take for granted as being something specific...

Gravity. I understand it's motion and what to expect under differing conditions.

Hot/Cold.

Hunger. It happens. I must eat.

Defecation/Urination. Sh*t happens.

Sleep. It happens. I must sleep.

etc.

0
0
0.000
avatar

:) Thanks. I was thinking about those absolutes ...

would agree on the matter of death as well as all the organic needs like sleep and - lol - shit etc. :-D

I didn't grasp the idea about black/white as absolutes.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Absolutes exist they just are not that common. In my mind they are pretty rare.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Lol i think that was me!

Nukes are utter bollocks...believing in them is the dogma...

But you are still choosing to focus on all the irrelevant crap and ignore the fact that none have ever been detonated...

They are every bit as fake as the corona hoax


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Nah. I am focusing on the relevant. That they had no way to fake those early videos at the level they exist. Today they still haven't achieved anything with computer generated ones that are as realistic as those if you zoom in on them.

Calling it fake when the evidence they presented could not be faked at the time to me seems like choosing a dogmatic path.

If you can show me a way that those videos could have been made that would not leave noticeable artifacts in the process then you might convince me. Until then simply saying they are fake doesn't cut it.

As to things like deep fakes today... I often tell people seeing is no longer believing. Why? Most things can be easily faked.

The Nuclear explosions could likely very convincingly be faked today if a lot of effort was put into it. Every example I've seen still has the artifacts if you know what to look for.

People, static things, animals, vehicles, etc. Those can easily be faked today.

Complex particle systems with the sheer number in those explosions and behaving the way they do. That is very difficult.

"choosing to focus on all the irrelevant crap"

You mean the fact the videos from early on were not faked?

How is that irrelevant?


EDIT: Another way you might convince me. Prove to me we have time machines, devoted a ton of time to faking the video today or in the future and sent someone back into the 1940s to present the faked videos.

If this was not a complex particle system you'd have an easier time convincing me as people do amazing things with special effects. One place they still fail at is particle systems.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I have long given up any desire to "convince" anyone to give up their dogma - but I like the irony of your post.

If you ever have any real desire to red pill yourself on the lie that is "atomic bombs" just look long and hard at this one photo. If you don't understand it's significance the problem lies not with the photo...

image.png

I know you like words, lots of words, here are someone else's words to ponder:

We have been bombarded about the threat of nuclear weapons.
At the same time we have been barraged by the claim that nuclear power is essential for our energy needs.
And over and over we have been battered by the assertion that plutonium is the most dangerous element in the world and just coming in contact with it will kill you.
Plutonium is extracted from uranium which is mined in the earth.
By adding neutrons into the nucleus of uranium atoms, plutonium is formed.
Since it decays by emitting alpha particles from it’s nucleus, plutonium is classified as an unstable isotope and the energy emitted from it is called nuclear radiation.
Is this radiation harmful?
When atomic particles leave the nucleus, the atom becomes ionized and these charged particles make up an electric current only if they are moving in an magnetic field.
Nuclear radioactivity does not constitute an electric current and the radiation is not harmful such as the moving ionized charged particles in microwave and x-ray emissions.
The energy escaping from the nuclear radiation is actually minute.
And we are told uranium and plutonium are so powerful that their half life decay rate will last hundreds of millions or even billions of years.
We are also told by harnessing this radiated energy we can derive power from it.
The first nuclear power plants were constructed to develop bombs using plutonium.
The idea was that energy created by the release of atomic particles would form a chain reaction and cause a massively potent explosion creating bombs more powerful than anyone could imagine.
But this did not happen.
The same idea was extended to the sun.
It is taught that the sun is powered by the magic nuclear transformation or decay of hydrogen into helium deep inside it’s interior.
This convective process has never been shown to occur.
In fact as seen in sunspots the sun is cooler in the inside, while out in the corona it is much hotter meaning the sun is powered externally.
The sun is an orb of plasma storing charged particles and releasing them in an electrical drift current.
It is not a nuclear bomb. There is no such thing!
Nikola Tesla showed electric power is everywhere available in unlimited quantities from the natural electromagnetic field of the Earth and that we have no need of fuel or anything else for energy.
But free power is anathema to the Control Grid.
Power companies use the Tesla Coil of alternating currents for power at little cost to them but charge consumers an exorbitant rate.
The first nuclear power plant was built in 1951 near Arco Idaho as an experiment.
In 1957 the first operating plant was built in Shippingport Pennsylvania.
There are now 64 so called nuclear power plants in the USA alone and a total of 104 reactors.
Most were built in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s and were said to last around 40 years.
Why 40 years?
40 years has now arrived.
These facilities were built along rivers, lakes and oceans because water is needed to be converted into steam.
The steam it is said is needed to drive turbines and to cool the reactor cores.
But the real purpose of the steam is for weather modification purposes.
Very few uranium enhancement facilities are still around.
There is only .7% uranium in uranium 235 and when it is enhanced to 4% it is called enriched uranium.
The uranium used for its atoms is called depleted uranium and is only .3% uranium 235.
Since we now have laser technology making bombs is obsolete.
Especially ones that never worked.
But there is all this depleted uranium just sitting around.
So the military came up with the bright idea of dropping it on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Then somebody thought of selling it as a weed killer.
It became Monsanto’s Roundup.
Brainwashed people spray it all over their yard.
Plutonium does not have much use now but is used experimentally in things like medical radiation therapy.
When plutonium is heated and melted and put in a metal tube it will become a glowing battery which would last for some say a hundred years.
It will not be on the market any time soon but would be very useful in a doomsday scenario.
In the late 90’s they started spraying heavy metals in the atmosphere.
These metals which includes uranium were sprayed first from airplanes and now from drones in the form of chemtrails.
This was to ionize the atmosphere in order to control the weather.
This spraying ruined our natural weather and now water vapor has to be sprayed into the air to produce rain.
So now we have surface air coolers or steam plants producing water vapor masquerading as nuclear power plants spread all around the country.
The nuclear power plant lie has been promulgated to keep the real agenda a secret.
Which is controlling the people by controlling the weather.
Soon communities will have to purchase rain.
To shift the focus, this weather transformation or climate change is falsely being blamed on the public as a result of automobile emissions.
Back n the 1940’s it was said Russia had developed a nuclear bomb and we needed to build bigger and better nuclear bombs then what they have.
Also in the 1940’s we were told that particles in a nuclear bomb travel over a mile per second and that anyone in the vicinity will become blind, have their reproductive organs damaged beyond repair and in all probability would instantly die.
Bikini Atoll is one of the Marshall Islands in the East Indies in the South Pacific.
23 offshore nuclear tests are said to have been done there.
The natives had to be kicked out.
These blasts are supposed to create not only tremendous wind but also 100,000 degree Fahrenheit heat and since the explosion was under the water it would also create a tsunami.
But looking at before and after pictures of Bikini Atoll the grass roofed huts, palm trees and swimming docks remain untouched.
As a matter of fact this inconceivable amount of heat would have at the very least turned the whole island into magma.
It only has to be 1300 Fahrenheit to produce lava.
In reality everything at those extreme temperatures would be vaporized!
You see how ridiculously silly this is?
The islanders eventually came back but were kicked again because it was said that strontium was found in crabs.
But why does the military maintain a presence there?
Why do they grow crops there if it is all contaminated by nuclear explosions?
Why are diving tours being conducted there?
Why in the ‘pictures’ of these tests, the boats out on the water near the blast remain unscathed?
Is it because the pictures were faked?
Why is not only the island thriving but the coral reef there is a diverse and well populated underwater habitat.
The Trinity test in New Mexico was supposed to be even bigger.
Why didn’t this blast create a crater?
Why did Robert Oppenheimer and his Generals pose for a picture a few weeks afterwards at ground zero?
That area should have been highly radioactive according to nuclear science.
The onlookers who were allowed to watch said they felt the heat from the blast.
But that means they would have got hit by the radiation.
Why were they not concerned and why did they not suffer any ill effects?
Maybe because it was all faked!
The Bravo bomb test in Nevada was said to be the biggest of all.
Why were so many soldiers allowed to watch?
Why did they not have protective clothing or goggles or anything?
Their eyes should have been fried and their testicles rendered inoperative!
They should have gotten cancer.
The blast cloud is supposed to have reached 60 miles into the air and traveled dozens of miles on the land surface.
Some soldiers are even pictured without a shirt.
The answer is that it was a detonation of dynamite and not any so-called atomic bomb and the soldiers knew that and were not concerned.
It was all a publicity stunt!
If nuclear bombs are real why all the fakery?
Why has Nagasaki and Hiroshima gotten no increase in cancer rates?
Both are thriving tourist towns with no ill effects at all.
The bombs dropped there and also in Tokyo and other cities in 1945 were incendiary fire bombs.
They were dropped nine months after the Japanese emperor wanted peace.
Instead he got nine more months of fire bombing.
Nuclear bombs are supposed to incinerate everything within miles so why were all the buildings in Hiroshima still standing with no structural damage afterwards?
Why has Chernobyl in Russia remained a haven for wildlife?
Why has Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania remained open if it was supposed to leak radioactive elements and cause cancer?
We were assured that the radiation fallout from Fukushima in Japan would contaminate the Pacific Ocean and reach the west coast of the U.S. giving coastal residents cancer and other health problems.
It never happened!
And why were there no blackouts in Japan after Fukushima when only one power plant remained open?
Nuclear power is supposed to account for one third of their energy.
We are told that nuclear power plants like the one at San Onofre in Southern California leaks, but beach goers have went to the beaches right beside it all these years and no one has suffered any ill effects.
Indian Point in upstate New York is supposed to be leaking radioactive material into the drinking water of New York City.
Why hasn’t anyone died form this?
Diablo Canyon and Oyster Creek are among many others which are said to continually leak.
Maybe they are all steam plants!
Yucca Mountain in Nevada is supposedly a huge nuclear waste storage facility but it is instead just a big underground military base.
Hanford in Washington state gets hundreds of millions to clean up the site.
It is all a big scam.
In fact the nuclear reactor scam is second only to the fake NASA moon landing scam.
Both have received upwards near 100 billion dollars.
Both have said they lost or erased technological achievements.
In the 1980’s a physicist named Galen Windsor who worked at different nuclear facilities ridiculed the prevailing opinion by actually consuming plutonium.
He stated nuclear fission is a hoax and that radioactivity is not harmful.
A swat team raided his home and took all his uranium.
He lived into his 80’s with no repercussions from ingesting the plutonium.
Workers at Los Alamos regularly have plutonium in their body.
Some have had it for over 50 years.
Why haven’t they died?
When some manufactured hurricane, earthquake or tsunami hits a power plant a meltdown will be said to have occurred.
This meltdown will be blamed on the explosion of hydrogen gas in the reactors.
This excuse will be used to drive people from their homes and relocate them into Fema Camps.
But
Nuclear reactors do not exist!
Nuclear radiation does not exist!
Nuclear power does not exist!
There are no nuclear weapons!
And there are no atomic bombs!

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Been there... done that.

My dogma?

None of you have done the simplest way to convince me.

Show me how the videos from the 40s could be faked.

ALMOST EVERY single thing you present is irrelevant if you can't do that. (EDIT: added Almost... my absolute was not true)

I am familiar with the field and not knowing of any way to fake what was in those videos is sufficient to say there is something REAL going on there.

Also you won't convince me by jumping through magical thinking hoops and telling me that computers we have today, and techniques we have today existed in the 40s. They didn't.

Is that ironic?

I already explained my observation of people seeing something "THEY" can't explain and deciding therefore the entire thing must be wrong and then they latch onto the fact it can't exist and form that into their new dogma.

Just because YOU don't understand something doesn't make it impossible.

As far as I understand videos there is no way to fake those videos from the 40s.

You could do so today if you put a huge amount of time, money, and effort into making just that one shot. Way beyond anything Hollywood and the film industry is doing.

If it were not a complex particle system they could fake it much easier. Deep fakes don't involve particles, they tend to focus on things that hold and retain a distinct shape like faces.

Those early videos... faking those. Oh man. It's mind boggling what that would take today.

The movies do a PRETTY good job. If you haven't messed with particle system simulation a lot. If you have then you can see the artifacts. Though they are definitely getting smaller and more difficult to see. You can see it in the approach to color, and often repeated shapes that are simply rotated, scaled, and tinted different colors often with some animation to the rotation, scale, and even tint so those things change over time. We can make a pretty good fake. We can't touch those earlier videos yet.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Also as to dogma. Look how many times you said "does not exist", "there are no", etc.

That my friend is DOGMA.

I don't close the door to the possibility. I have simply seen a piece of evidence I don't see how it could be faked.

Whether they are lying about some things. That I don't doubt. They lie about pretty much everything in one fashion or another.

Yet is there something there. From those videos I'd say yes. Until someone can show me how those 40s videos could have been faked at the time they came out, and even reliably today saying it is "not real" doesn't make sense.

Now I know it is likely a field you know little about so you don't believe me. You seem to limit the possibilities of the world to only things you yourself KNOW ABOUT.

If you don't. Then maybe they don't exist.

If you don't. The maybe they are just wrong.

If you don't. Then the people that don't agree with you are ignorant and stupid.

There is a label for that. DOGMA


Your reply is littered with absolutes. The sign of a closed mind, limiting possibility, already "settled" on their conclusions.

Dogma


To simplify:

There is a big difference between saying "I don't think they exist" and saying "They don't exist".

0
0
0.000
avatar

Now after stepping away.

I don't think you are stupid.

I don't think you are closed minded.

ALL of us can fall into the trap of DOGMA.

To me a key trait seems to be the presence of absolutes. I still catch myself using them from time to time (I had to edit a reply to you for example).

Yet deciding what does and does not exist based upon each of our own limitations can be extremely flawed.

Some of the things you are talking about could be true. I don't think all of them are.

I certainly also think there is something to the "nuclear bombs" simply from the video evidence. As to all the details about them. I have no clue how extensive the lies may or may not be. I am not going to speculate and then start believing my speculation is fact.

0
0
0.000
avatar

if they existed they would have been used - but they never have been...odd that...

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't know anyone from Hiroshima or Nagasaki so I haven't spoken to anyone about it myself personally.

Again you avoid the simple way you can convince me.

Show me how the videos from the 40s could be faked.

This is especially relevant when you look at what special effects from that time period actually looked like.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Also... thanks for stepping up. I didn't remember who it was. :)

If I had made a guess I would have guessed the wrong person.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Nope it wasn't you. It was sift666. He freshly reminded me with his reply. He already sent me down this rabbit hole.

He never did answer the one thing I've offered that could convince me.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Maybe sift666 had a run in with a whale and had to reinvent himself as a fresh faced and submissive little steemian!

0
0
0.000
avatar

HAH. If that is the case. Bravo and my lips are sealed. I do remember sift666 getting hammered by whales a lot back then. We discussed it.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Interesting post.

A tendency towards simplification may indeed be a factor in the creation of dogma in one's mind.

Interestingly I just wrote a giant post on words, labels, and absolutes. I didn't approach it from this exact angle, but I detect some similarities in our thinking anyway, and quite synchronous timing, I'd say.

Just curious... have you ever read any Wittgenstein? He explored a lot of similar concepts.

Anyway, I appreciate this thought-provoking post, may we all improve in recognizing our cognitive dissonance, elevate our use of absolutes, and handle dogma in better and better ways.

Thanks for sharing! 🙏

0
0
0.000
avatar

Nope. I have not read any Wittgenstein.

Most of this has just been observation, internal dialogs with myself, and iteration.

I am absolutely certain it has formed through interaction with people as well. Yet I can't point out any one source.

I also can be inspired by dialog with people here and that plants the seed. Then I start stream of consciousness writing and sometimes it works out. Sometimes it doesn't. :)

Appreciate the comment. I'll have a look at your post.

0
0
0.000
avatar

All good, observation and internal iteration is great. And I respect your 'stream of consciousness' process. Thanks again for sharing, and see you over there! 😁

0
0
0.000