Dobra nowina – Izrael naprawdę może nie mieć bomby atomowej

 

1. ad Tsutomu Yamaguchi przeżył dwa wybuchy bomby atomowej w Hiroszimie i Nagasaki. Mało tego, dożył 93 lat. Zmarł z powodu choroby nowotworowej żołądka 4 stycznia 2010 r.

   **

   No właśnie … Ale czy naprawdę przeżył wybuch bomby atomowej,czy po prostu ot tak sobie przeżył. Świadkowie (lecąc nad terenami) zniszczeń miast japońskich przez naloty dywanowe, oczekiwali jakiś radykalnie odmiennych widoków nad Hiroszimą i Nagasaki, ale zobaczyli dokładnie to samo.

   Dobra nowina – Izrael naprawdę może nie mieć bomby atomowej

   Oczywiście o ile takowa bomba istnieje, bez wątpienia Izrael ją ma. Nie mniej gdy zaczniemy się wgłębiać w zagadnienie, pojawia się wiele znaków zapytania. Pewne obiekcje są natury technicznej, pewne w zupełności dostępne amatorom.Tu przedstawiam parę fragmentów książki: Death Object – Exploding the Nuclear Weapons Hoax autorstwa Akio Nakatani.

   https://varapanyo.blogspot.com/2024/02/dobra-nowina-izrael-naprawde-moze-nie.html?m=1

   CROCK or ‘Consensus Reality Ontologically Certain Knowing’ – camels never straying from the desert of the real

   Conspiracy!

   It is one of those instances where the reasoner can produce an effect which seems remarkable to his neighbour, because the latter has missed the one little point which is the basis of the deduction.
   (Sherlock Holmes)

   We’ve gone through some intense material up to this point. Let’s take a philosophy break now. There seems to be a culture clash between so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ on one side of the divide and defenders of rational orthodoxy on the other. Conspiracy theorists propose and defend unconventional interpretations of events and motives. Such analyses (including this book) are viewed by defenders of orthodox thought as absolute drooling idiocy.

   Let’s call those who regard themselves as rational, sober, mature, informed, emotionally stable defenders of common sense and scientific fidelity the soldiers of ‘Consensus Reality Ontologically Certain Knowing’ (CROCK) – upholders of truth. They are camels never straying from the desert of the real. I don’t mean to poke fun at either side. I totally get each side’s point of view. Conspiracy people really are a little too whacked out some of the time. And the CROCK people are too anally uptight for my taste. Con artists always say that those who are most certain they cannot be fooled make the best marks. And at bottom both populations are just people, struggling for survival, satisfaction, and significance in this cold world.

   Apart from the validity of any one theory (conventional or conspiratorial), it’s interesting to look at the psychology of both sides. The masters of CROCK love nothing better than armchair psychoanalysis of conspiracy theorists. When they ask themselves why anybody would believe the patently lunatic bullshit which the average conspiracy guy takes as revealed truth, they always come up with some version of the following list:

   Ignorance (of science)
   Compensation (wanting to feel special)
   Anxiety (seeking certainty to alleviate fear)
   Boredom (helping to enliven an otherwise lackluster day)
   Avarice (selling books, lecture seats)
   Perversity (trolls, haters, teenagers)
   Let’s go through these one at a time.

   Ignorance: The CROCKsters have a point here. Your typical conspiracy theorist is not as well versed in techie subjects as he or she ought to be. Yet they often opine on highly technical areas that lie outside their core competence. (if they even have a core competence).

   Compensation: The conspiracy theorist is taken to be a basement-dwelling loser/loner who buttresses himself in the face of the world’s indifference or rejection with the false solace of knowing more than his betters. It’s ego reinforcement. Of course there’s a certain half-life to that. As time passes and the content of any given conspiracy theory becomes more widely known, the cachet of holding ‘secret’ knowledge about what’s really happening tends to diminish. (…)

   Very satisfying! The trouble is that the above analysis of conspiracy nuts has bilateral symmetry. It’s sauce for both goose and gander. It can easily be turned around and replayed from the other side without loss of generality. Let’s try that.

   Ignorance: Here in this one area, the CROCKsters do have valid point. More science is always good. That’s why we need some open proof of the nuclear FEAR hypothesis.

   Compensation: Emotional compensation is another double-edged putdown. Isn’t there a lot of emotional satisfaction in feeling that you are a good citizen, a sober soldier of rationality? You command the high ground of logic and proof, you have education, authority and rationality – all on your side. Isn’t that a warm feeling for the orthodox rationalist?

   Anxiety: I sometimes wonder why it’s supposed to be much more reassuring to suspect that your government or other trusted authorities are out to scam and kill you or other innocents, rather than reposing in the safe certainty that you are in the soft hands of a responsible, adult, protective authority (CROCK). When CROCK psychologizes and tsk-tsk’s about conspiracy theorists, you’re bound at some point to see a line like this: ‘People love certainty and find uncertainty uncomfortable’. But who is more certain of him or her self than a soldier of CROCK? They know that the USA military would never conduct bioweapons experiments on uninformed enlisted men, nor would the CIA have had programs to influence the media, newspapers, academia, etc. Conspiracy theories are treated like the field of AI, as an infinitely receding horizon. As soon as a conspiracy theory turns out to be true, it’s pulled over the velvet rope of respectability and is no longer credited to the lunatics’ scorecard. (…)

   https://varapanno.blogspot.com/2024/02/crock-or-consensus-reality.html?m=0