Category Archives: Science hoaxes

On XRays and Nooklear radiation

Be the 1st to vote.

Great interchange in our #alchemical-hustle thread.


JustsayindudeYesterday at 7:24 PM

Ok so help me out here alchemical hustle Busters – I don’t buy, at all, not even slightly the nuke narrative and I am totally onboard with the overall atomic hoax. however in thinking about it I realised that there is a logical conflict that I can’t resolve that goes as follows my father was a vet and as I grew up I watched hundreds and hundreds of x-rays get taken by a very old, very simple looking X-ray machine the official narrative tells us there it is full of caesium (magic rocks) The device itself seemed very simple it plugged in, it had a small cone head, a shutter system with a light bulb and crosshairs that allowed you to adjust the rays that would emit from the machine to the size of the photographic plate. So here’s my question does anyone have a reasonable psychologist angle on x-ray machines? Especially would like to hear from @smj who can spot a hustle a mile off, but appreciate anyone’s input. Could magic rocks be partly true?
Fakeologist, not psychologist :eyes:

SilverbeamYesterday at 7:40 PM

I’ve had a few x-rays. It wasn’t faked.
There are radiative phenomena outside the visible light spectrum I’m pretty sure.
Is it a matter of so – small – they – are – invisible particles? Very hard to say.

JustsayindudeYesterday at 8:02 PM

Hmm, good point light vs particles. I know the imaging process works and we know that radiation passes through us all the time. I guess the question in my mind is does that radiation spray out of a material that is contained inside that device?

NEW MESSAGES

smjYesterday at 10:14 PM

roetgen rays came out of tubes. like crookes tubes andwhatnot. xrays are just another wavelength of that magical shit we call light. it can see thru skin but not barium andsoforth(edited)
alfred loomis’ tuxedo park mansion where he hung out with onestone et al is now the tube musuem. museum means institute of the muses of course… www.tubemuseum.org…

JustsayindudeYesterday at 11:57 PM

Yeah, I’m down with light we can’t see, used to do Rf, it’s all light really. I guess the question is what generates the invisible light called xrays? Is it hot rocks, or have they hidden some kind of cathode ray tube in a very small housing since a long time ago? It would actually be easy to test, as in theory it would draw no current while firing. Anyone here got an xray machine?

October 18, 2017

JustsayindudeToday at 12:00 AM

Hmm, just checked, first machine built just a few weeks after xrays discovered. Hmmm:thinking:

anounceofsaltperdayToday at 1:39 AM

@Justsayindude Xray machines make disturbances in the Aether at higher frequency than light bulbs do.. that’s all
X-radiation (composed of X-rays) is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Most X-rays have a wavelength ranging from 0.01 to 10 nanometers, corresponding to frequencies in the range 30 petahertz to 30 exahertz (3×1016 Hz to 3×1019 Hz) and energi…

Nothing nukelar… entirely electromagnetic
the trick with all this is the use of the word RADIATION associated with NUKELA
If you hear the word RADIATION you get very, very, very nervous
@Justsayindude at the same time, i am not suggesting that EMR is nothing to be amazed at. The Creator really has made an astonishing world

JustsayindudeToday at 1:56 AM

Fair call, it’s a fancy light bulb. Funny old world. And, if that is the hustle, it’s perfect because no one is allowed to, or would be brave enough to pull one apart. That said, my test remains valid – if it draws current when it fires, it would prove the hustle. Haven’t got an xray at work have you Frank?

anounceofsaltperdayToday at 1:57 AM

@Justsayindude they do draw current. They are plugged into the mains
they are a fancy light bulb with “wave guides”
very similar to a CRT monitor
the Xrays are more harmful than microwaves

JustsayindudeToday at 1:59 AM

No, I know they are plugged in – that’s not the issue or the question. In theory, when firing the only thing that happens is lead shutters peel back to allow the caesium created rays out – no current required at that precise moment

anounceofsaltperdayToday at 2:00 AM

what is the Caesium connection?

JustsayindudeToday at 2:00 AM

At least that was my understanding, maybe I’m wrong

anounceofsaltperdayToday at 2:00 AM

no different in principle to a heat lamp
just a different wavelength

JustsayindudeToday at 2:01 AM

Radioactive material contained inside the machine – that’s the narrative… But now I’m doubting myself

anounceofsaltperdayToday at 2:01 AM

Ionising radiation hazard symbol

JustsayindudeToday at 2:02 AM

Off to check with uncle google

anounceofsaltperdayToday at 2:02 AM

looks very like the nukelar symbol doesn’t it?
roduction by electrons[edit] Characteristic X-ray emission lines for some common anode materials.[15][16] Anode material Atomic number Photon energy [keV] Wavelength [nm] K?1 K?1 K?1 K?1 W 74 59.3 67.2 0.0209 0.0184 Mo 42 17.5 19.6 0.0709 0.0632 Cu 29 8.05 8.91 0.154 0.139 Ag 47 22.2 24.9 0.0559 0.0497 Ga 31 9.25 10.26 0.134 0.121 In 49 24.2 27.3 0.0512 0.455 Spectrum of the X-rays emitted by an X-ray tube with a rhodium target, operated at 60 kV. The smooth, continuous curve is due to bremsstrahlung, and the spikes are characteristic K lines for rhodium atoms. X-rays can be generated by an X-ray tube, a vacuum tube that uses a high voltage to accelerate the electrons released by a hot cathode to a high velocity. The high velocity electrons collide with a metal target, the anode, creating the X-rays.[17] In medical X-ray tubes the target is usually tungsten or a more crack-resistant alloy of rhenium (5%) and tungsten (95%), but sometimes molybdenum for more specialized applications, such as when softer X-rays are needed as in mammography. In crystallography, a copper target is most common, with cobalt often being used when fluorescence from iron content in the sample might otherwise present a problem.
Xrays are created with a vacuum tube… just like an old television
or Cathode Ray Tube screen

JustsayindudeToday at 2:04 AM

I have just figured out I am officially an idiot – no idea where I got that idea from

anounceofsaltperdayToday at 2:04 AM

the same place we all get it from… we are DELIBERATELY given muddled data

JustsayindudeToday at 2:04 AM

Ah yes, lots of muddle to clear out. Sorry for wasting your time

anounceofsaltperdayToday at 2:05 AM

i consider time spent in what we just did to be the most productive use of “time”
your view of the falsehood of nukelar has been strengthened
and you will now be conscious of the number of people that think “radiation” and nukelar are the same thang

JustsayindudeToday at 2:12 AM

Yeah, funny, I already knew he difference, and the hustle. Now I’m just dumbfounded how I had that understanding in my head. Ah well, as someone who discovered fakery, finding out I’m wrong is nothing new
Got mixed up with this narrative somewhere along the line Devices Gauging devices are used to measure, monitor, and control the thickness of sheet metal, textiles, paper napkins, newspaper, plastics, photographic film, and other products as they are manufactured. Nonportable gauging devices (i.e., gauges mounted in fixed locations) are designed for measurement or control of material density, flow, level, thickness, or weight, and so forth. The gauges contain sealed sources that radiate through the substance being measured to a readout or controlling device. Portable gauging devices, such as moisture density gauges, are used at field locations. These gauges contain a gamma-emitting sealed source, usually cesium-137, or a sealed neutron source, usually americium-241 and beryllium.

anounceofsaltperdayToday at 3:03 AM

@Justsayindude the first radiation emitting substance was “radium” “discovered” by Marie and Pierre Curie
Radium was discovered long before “nuclear physics” existed
@Justsayindude . this entry says that Radium WAS USED in portabe X ray machines… so YOU WERE CORRECT!!!
Marie Sk?odowska Curie (; French: [ky?i]; Polish: [k?i?ri]; 7 November 1867 – 4 July 1934; born Maria Salomea Sk?odowska; [?marja sal??m?a skw??d?fska]) was a Polish and naturalized-French physicist and chemist who conducted pioneer…

JustsayindudeToday at 3:08 AM

Thanks @anounceofsaltperday i was struggling with some serious self doubt there

anounceofsaltperdayToday at 3:10 AM

Now i am trying to find what her theory of radiation was… the one she won the nobel prize for
such answers do not come easily
a key point here… Lastly, certain of the radioactive substances have a special property which bears no direct relation to their beams. This is to make temporarily radioactive all the bodies in their neighbourhood, by producing a radioactive emanation which communicates the radioactive property to the surroundings.
I now conclude that Uranium is “made radioactive” by being radiated upon
Radioactivity is simply what the name implies, substances which emit Electromagnetic Radiation… EMR
?

1
Substances like Caesium etc must be like rechargeable batteries of EMR
They call the discharging of energy of Caesium etc “Half life”
so that means we have made brilliant use of the past hour of our lives @Justsayindude
and we can confirm that “radioactive materials” simply give off the same rays as Electric X Ray tubes

JustsayindudeToday at 3:31 AM

Hey, good call. That is actually significant

anounceofsaltperdayToday at 3:32 AM

yes… i think we have tumbled it
@Justsayindude as an aside, have you watched Netflix show “The Good Place” ?

JustsayindudeToday at 3:39 AM

Can’t say I have

anounceofsaltperdayToday at 4:00 AM

a VERY interesting show
about the afterlife

JustsayindudeToday at 5:20 AM

Hey Frank ( @anounceofsaltperday ), appreciate the heads up, but don’t have netflix. Anywho, the more I think about it, the more I think, that is a bit of a major. On the one hand, you have magic hot rocks releasing magic xrays. On the other hand, you have a copper/gold/iron etc cathode dunked in low pressure inert gas releasing xrays. Boomshakalakah baby, magic hot rocks not required. Metal, electricity and gas equals magic hot rocks. That is NOT insignificiant.
Well done

Unclear subs 

Be the 1st to vote.

The best place to conduct a lie is where people can’t see. As above, so below, “space” and underwater. 

With few able to check, these are great places to make up fiction, science fiction, as in Jules Verne, responsible for most modern fiction a century later. 

Here’s a misdirection hoax story. Most that understand the Great Lakes know this story is impossible, but how many take it a step further and question how much of the submarine story is fake? 

We know they exist on the surface, but once they go under water and out of sight, what exactly is going on? Is this where Hellyweird takes over? 

fakeologist.com…

DNA is a hoax 

el sushi de la manchaUNreallike this

DNA is simply digital blood testing. There is no double helix, no RNA, no way to narrow down who you are by spitting into a cup. I doubt chromosomes exist too, in reality, our micro world is as fictive as our macro outer space world. You’re looking at made up art and science fiction concepts.

The 23 and me and ancestry tests are also pure fiction. The application simply gives them enough info to fit you in their massive family tree,which is full of countries and ethnicities for them to tell you about.

Here’s a clip from 958.nashownotes.com… trashing the tests, helping prove a larger lie.

Did the 9/11 WTC memorial flood for Al? 

Be the 1st to vote.

He said it did. 

Al invokes his southern drawl to get passionate about his going g Green to save the world myth and drags the old 9/11 bathtub canard out to do it. 
I don’t know which myth is bigger.  

Hawking a hoax

Be the 1st to vote.

At 1:35:33, @adamcurry actually questions  Stephen Hawking and calls it a hoax. Another leak in the gatekeeping. 

Great story on data roaming in Europe as well. 
* Duration: 2:45h, Played: 1:35h

DNA hoax 

likes this

Further to the concept that micro space science is most likely a hoax, I propose that DNA itself is a hoax. There are no double strands, and I am skeptical about chromosomes as well. 

In 1986 or so DNA testing came online. What else happened at this time? The widespread use and mass production of the micro processor. 

My guess is that computers and blood tests were integrated to database the micro characteristics of blood. While ordinary record keeping is good for general characteristics, only a computer can keep track of millions of variables. 

Even the language surrounding DNA testing is amusing. Mini and micro satellites are in our blood and part of the test! 

www2.le.ac.uk/departments/emfpu/to-be-deleted/explained/profiling-history…

In its earliest incarnation this technique was performed by restriction of 0.5–10?g extracted DNA using the restriction enzyme HinFI, followed by Southern blotting hybridisation designed to bind to multiple ‘minisatellites’ present in the restricted DNA