I thought I'd put a little effort into this one because it seems to me you are a reasonable, conscientious person. I tried to reply in another window but I don't think it went through so I apologize if this is a repeated posting. > You mean who can tell nukes work for real? > Without being a nuclear scientist I can guarantee you that I can't tell anything. I Doubt. There are multiple narratives true at the same time, as the cat is both alive and dead ... until you check. Think in a Bayesian way. > Chinese, north koreans, russians, pakistanis, indians... Nuclear phycisists from all over the world.... Did I mention the entire west? I think it's reasonable to assume they have nuclear power. People tell you a lot of things. For example, climate alarmism, hall of costs, etc. Doubt. Don't say it's got to be A or B. Doubt both, and also consider C, D, E .... etc. There is an infinite range of potential scenarios here. There are motivations to lie. Would the president of the USA have to know if it was a lie? Possible still right? > real to me, This statement is mysticism. You don't have any real evidence, just stuff written in papers. Explain how global warming is a fraud to your normie friends. Global warming is real to them too. How can you doubt 97% of scientists? Explain what god is? Once you hit a brick wall, the explain how do you know he/it exists or doesn't exist? This line of thinking will help you unravel what doesn't matter. Nukes are in your psyche because someone wants them there. Control your thoughts by not telling yourself what you know, when you can't validate. > tsar bobma wasn't tnt for instance, to be clear, because 57,000,000 tons of tnt The pictures and videos look scary, for sure. It sure is scary to say 6 gorillian as well. You realize Hollywood is run by the NWO right? How many witnesses to the shoah? How many history books mention it? Look at all the hockey stick charts for global warming. Wow, the NOAA data seems to match the predictions all of a sudden. I wonder how that will seem in another 10 years or so when the data is covered up further. But I'm sure everything is exactly as the papers and journal articles (all owned by Jewish oligarchs) say. All these scientists insisting on the global warming alarmism facts. Just like the 57,000,000 tons of TNT. Have you considered what 1 megawatt of power is? How big of a truck would you need to haul 100 tons of dirt? What does 3 degrees kelvin feel like? What is the difference between 150C and 250C ... but you only get to use your hand to touch? How old is the universe again? Why do crack tips show infinite stress with every continuum mechanics model? Do bubbles form at infinite pressure points in liquid? Is infinite pressure possible? Consider that we have models with measured variables and then math (theory) projects numbers and other quantities. Most of the science is just correlations of made up (invented) variables. Then tested against a lack of correlation and if rejection meets a probabalistic threshold we reject. What if we can't reject? What is the chance we are wrong by accepting the null hypothesis? I must repeat again, what variables? Why not other variables? There are an infinite number of variables possible with an infinite number of definitions. Did someone measure 57,000,000 tons of TNT exploding to confirm? > You can't just keep a secret like that for so long with that much people involved It's a lot easier to lie to people than you think. Confirmation bias is real. This was the biggest red-pill I personally ever had. Review Type-I and Type-II errors. Also, look up Gellmann Amnesia. Note that I'm not *concluding* anything here, just providing another (albeit, history re-aligning) possibility. Without validation, one should hold multiple scenarios. Until validation, it's probabilistic. Consider the big bully NWO has big scary doomsday device. Here's lots and lots of evidence that you can't verify, but "trust the plan". Sounds legit, doesn't it? These people are psychopaths and pathological story tellers, so you should always doubt every level of the story. Every level as in how much, how big, how long, how bad ... everything. They are supposedly cleansing the entire middle east and do false flag attacks almost daily. I think they'd use them if they had them. At least once. It think it's more likely that nuclear stuff exists, but what people think it is is not what it is. Who runs Hollywood again? >So, believe what you want about nukes. I'm not buying the "nukes don't exist" just as I don't buy flat earth. I don't believe "nukes don't exist" I doubt the story as is. This is over-interpreting. I reject the story, and believe something in between. It's a matter of quantification. Good on you for also not believing flat-earth. This is another example of what I'm trying to get at. Just because NASA has a bunch of lazy footage, and we might reject some of it, doesn't mean we have to conclude something else. Many flat earth concepts are easily rejectable (probabilistically) with real experiment. Another way to say it is that the possibility that Flat-earth is unlikely, beyond a threshold of belief, so we reject it. It's possible we're wrong, but the experiments disprove (statistically) a bunch of things required for that conclusion. Keep in mind, I'm only offering you a mechanism to relinquish the fear. Fear is the secret recipe of mind and population control. You have freedom from the shackles with skepticism (a never concluding statement). Note that everything I'm trying to express here is as a measure of rejection (with a pre-determined, type-I error threshold). It's OK if you don't believe any of this (belief in itself is a problematic thing). The wisdom here is not to believe ... **it's to doubt**. Validation is important, as it's what separates science from religion.