Category: "Debunking"

Chernobyl death figures

How many people do you think died due to the Chernobyl nuclear incident? 25 thousand? 100 thousand? 1 million? 4 million?

In Britain a lot of noise is being made by Greenpeace and other organisations campaigning against building more nuclear power stations. They use Chernobyl as an example of thousands or millions of people being killed due to nuclear power stations.

They for one ignore the fact that meltdowns in that fashion can no longer happen in modern nuclear power stations.

But more importantly they invent figures; or put forward flawed figures thrown around by the bourgeois press in the West at the time used it as an excuse to attack the Soviet Union where inflating figures always seems to happen.

However the actual figure is just 56, that's from the Chernobyl Forum, an international organisation of scientific bodies including a number of UN agencies.

The background radiation levels in Chernobyl are no higher than other natural background levels elsewhere in the world, studies of animals in the area show no increase in cancer or cell damage.

Chernobyl was about as bad as a nuclear accident could possibly be, a total meltdown, yet more people die on Britains roads every week.

Global energy requirements demand a nuclear solution, renewable on it's own just won't generate enough power in the short time and to say no to nuclear power is reckless.

More information can be found here.

Channelers are con artists

Just stumbled across a channeler called J.Z. Knight. She claims to channel the spirit of a 35000 year old warrior called Ramtha, who fought against Atlantis.

When she goes into her "trance", when she's actually being possessed by this spirit she starts speaking with an Elizabethan (the Queen's English, well the American stereotype of it) English accent.

Why would a 35000 year old spirit speak English? Secondly why would it have an Elizabethan accent?

Is she trying to suggest this guy from 35000 years ago spoke English? Doesn't she do even the slightest bit of research, even the same language 300 years ago would be virtually incomprehensible, what would 35000 years do to a language? Either way English wouldn't of been the language of Britain then anyway it would of been some ancestor to Celtic, or may be something even before that. English is a Germanic language mixed with a few other European bits and bobs from the settlers that came from the mainland in the last thousand years or so.

The very notion of a spirit of a 35000 year old person speaking Hollywood's version of the Queen's English is just barmy.

Her supporters would argue that the spirit uses her language to communicate. OK fair enough but why the accent? To me and anyone with more than 4 brain cells she's just putting on a jolly bad show.

She also claims this spirit was a warrior, well 35000 years ago? That’s way pre-warfare so how can you have a warrior?

Lastly I'll come to Atlantis. Atlantis didn't exist, it was a hypothetic society used by Plato to teach his students, the very frame work the course was in shows this, it was a conversation between two famous people that lived hundreds of years apart. Essentially Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton discussing a foreign hypothetical society. It also mentions this society was beyond the Pillars of Hercules (Strait of Gibraltar). The ancient Greek equivalent of a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

I mean come on, if you’re gonna bullshit everyone and screw people out of money at least make the story remotely believable, something that can’t be debunked so easily.

People like this should be thrown in jail for fraud, and people who claim to talk to people's recently deceased relatives should be thrown in jail for fraud and being bastards who are seriously screwing with people's emotions.

Backwards probability and creationist flawed reasoning

One thing creationists often trot out is how improbable the universe is.

There's really two separate parts to this. One being how improbable it is that the world around us seemingly so perfectly fits human life. Creationists generally use the word "perfectly" but it's clear we're not perfectly suited to the Earth as a whole, a desert isn't a very nice place for a human for example.

The Earth doesn’t fit perfectly with life, life just managed to change enough to survive. Life on Earth evolved to suit the conditions life found itself in, it's like asking why a puddle of water fits so perfectly into the whole in the ground. That's just how it works. Life that breathes hydrogen in order to survive wouldn't last very long, yet life which breathes oxygen would survive as we now have oxygen in the atmosphere and so on. During mass extinction events, would they say the Earth fits life so perfectly? Of course not because a lot of species would be dying due to new conditions they find themselves in which they didn't evolve for. It's flawed reasoning to the very core.

The other addresses how improbable things are at the cosmological scale, i.e. the probability that matter could form or the universe wouldn't collapse an instant after the Big Bang.

On the cosmological scale and even on the life on Earth scale, you're doing probability backwards. Which simply doesn't work.

If you took a dice with a million sides and rolled a number say 159154. What were the odds of you rolling that number? A million to one. Yet it happened.

If we say you cannot exist unless that number is 754689 and the dice keeps rolling, eventually it'll hit 754689 and you'll exist and pop up and say wow how improbable this was. The fact the dice may of rolled a million times already, but because you didn't exist and therefore couldn't record those million attempts doesn't mean it's impossible; it was simply inevitable.

You can't do probability backwards, it just doesn't make sense.

Admiral Noah's fleet

Admiral Noah

Christians are claiming to of discovered Noah's Ark (again). This time it's in Iran. Just how many ships did Noah command? I can find at least four ships.

I believe we also have evidence for a 5th ship in Great Britain too. Well we don't have the actual boat, or any evidence of a ship but we've got evidence of the feast that followed! Here we go from a recent BBC News article:

Bones and tusks dating back 400,000 years are the earliest signs in Britain of ancient humans butchering elephants for meat, say archaeologists.
Remains of a single adult elephant surrounded by stone tools were found in northwest Kent during work on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

Scientists believe hunters used the tools to cut off the meat, after killing the animal with wooden spears.

Clearly they're mistaken, obviously it couldn't of been 400 000 years ago, so they must mean 4000 years. Elephants don't live in Britain it must of come from the Ark! This must of been the big feast they had when they left one of the arks, can't be anything else!

Anyway back to reality, that makes Noah's fleet at least 5 ships strong.

And to have them all beach at the top of mountains, what kind of admiral was he? A bad one at best. I've never heard of admirals ever losing their ships at the top of mountains, yeah sure this was before GPS but come on.

BBC Horizon - War on Science

The BBC recently aired a documentary dealing with the intelligent design issue.

It can be found on Google Video.

In my opinion it's a good way for people to get up to speed on the whole intelligent design and creationist movement, even if less critical than I would like.

No evidence to support WTC being brought down by thermite

In my opinion, based mainly on history, the security forces in the US were probably aware of some upcoming plot; it wouldn't be too surprising if they did know what the intended targets were and the means of carrying out the attack.

But to make the jump from knowing roughly of a plot doesn't mean they were actively involved. Why would the Republicans risk this? If it was true they would be out of office for half a century or more.

It's easy enough to get through some right-wing agenda in the US, it's been happening under the Democrats and Republicans for generations with few people noticing; Bush didn't need the attacks in order to carry out his agenda. In the past we see many cases of attacks be faked. The pretext for the German invasion of Poland was based on Polish forces invading Germany first; which of course was fake. The planned full-scale invasion of Cuba was going to be justified by the sinking of a US ship; which would of been fake. The invasion of Yugoslavia (under Clinton - not a Republican) was justified by genocide; which was also fake and so on and so on.

The US media buy any story and the US population swallow it; no matter how small it is. You don't need destruction on that scale to justify an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq and a clamping down of rights in the US. It's possible Bush knew something was coming and didn't act, or the security forces were instructed to carry on monitoring the involved rather than making the arrests. That may be an honest mistake or there may be something to it. I'm not sure which is the more likely.

They can always invent a story to push through an agenda, it might be a bit slower without people witnessing two symbols of America being brought down, but it would still of happened. Just like Iraq - which had nothing to do with the World Trade Center attacks was still invaded supported by huge majority in the US 90% and above.

Anyway, onto the story at hand.

From WebNV:

Scientific analysis on WTC steel debris undertaken by BYU Professor Steven Jones proves that the twin towers were demolished by means of incendiary devices and the release of the conclusive evidence is imminent.

Steven Jones again, his bias should be enough to throw the evidence right into the bin. He's been claiming thermite has been used for months - with no evidence at all.

Now he claims to of found traces (on steel who's exact origins are largely unknown) of sulfur, which he claims is evidence that thermite was used to bring down the buildings. However in office buildings and aircraft you'll find a lot of sulfur and aluminum and lots of other things, so you really need traces of the other components of thermite, you should find 7 times as much barium is sulfur, yet his report does not mention any traces of barium.

Thermite itself is also a very bad way to demolish a building, it's actually used (or at least used to be used) to weld steel together because of its heat. You'd need masses and masses of thermite to even make a dent on a building like this. You'd really need something explosive to do the job, something like a large, fuel-laden aircraft. Oh wait that's what we've got.

Even more odd, thermite hasn't used sulfur as a binding agent for a decade or so, after this was pointed out to him he claims it was an exotic military thermite, which does use sulfur and which also explodes. Again no evidence to back up this claim.

I don't buy it. It's just the same as the Pentagon missile stuff... Sure if you ignore the hundreds of eye-witnesses who saw a large passenger aircraft and just put forward the few people who weren't sure what they saw you can make anything seem possible.

Steven Jones's work cannot be trusted at face value and should be scrutinized heavily.

1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...8 ... 10 ...12 13