Al Borealis Created a Podcast That Dives Deep Into Topics That Matter |389|

[Steve]

Well - I wouldn't be as bland as that - it must be at least say 20 secs out of synch - and it may have looked in synch to those who chose to publish it! You can't make that mistake accidentally!

I never said it was accidental, I think it was quite deliberate. But waiting 20secs just to hear the sound is a long time. They probably just didn’t want each explosion to take that long, the viewer might become bored, so I’m saying they said to hell with the 20secs, lets just make the audio and the visual simultaneous.

Take a look at Mishelle's links above. The fascinating fact is that the photographs of Hiroshima after the bombing look almost identical to the aftermath of the fire bombing of Tokyo. In particular, there doesn't seem to be a crater at ground zero.

What about the survivors testimonies? One Big Bang or an extended bombing by lots of aeroplanes?

Well if the scale was faked, could you definitely tell? Remember also that in the early days, this was an effort to end the war with Japan, you could consume a hell of a lot of TNT to achieve that! The mushroom shape is not exclusive to atomic weapons.

That’s what I was asking you! As I’m willing to believe that I/we might be easily fooled - show me how. To me, one mushroom cloud means one bomb. What other bomb was capable of producing such devastation in 1945? How many tons of tnt would be required, and how many aeroplanes carrying it.

I am not that keen personally on exploring conspiracy theories - but I'll bet this one has some legs.

We all have our favourites David. This is not one of mine.

 

[David Bailey]

I never said it was accidental, I think it was quite deliberate. But waiting 20secs just to hear the sound is a long time. They probably just didn’t want each explosion to take that long, the viewer might become bored, so I’m saying they said to hell with the 20secs, lets just make the audio and the visual simultaneous.

I think it is strange that the video didn't at least start with an explanation of what had been done.

What about the survivors testimonies? One Big Bang or an extended bombing by lots of aeroplanes?



That’s what I was asking you! As I’m willing to believe that I/we might be easily fooled - show me how. To me, one mushroom cloud means one bomb. What other bomb was capable of producing such devastation in 1945? How many tons of tnt would be required, and how many aeroplanes carrying it.

You have a point, but if we assume the Hiroshima bombing was to be deliberately hoaxed, I guess it might be that something was dropped to create a big smoke plume prior to other planes dropping fire bombs.

We all have our favourites David. This is not one of mine.

I am not saying it is my favourite - Mishelle brought the subject up - but I think it might explain rather a lot, if true. NK did all its testing underground. Why - a visible explosion would have been more impressive. The USSR broke up into quite a mess. Are we to assume that not one of their weapons was stolen or sold on by disgruntled military men who were not being paid?

It also fits the US style of behaviour. It is now accepted (I think) that the Vietnam war was started deliberately when a US warship steamed inside the territorial waters of North Vietnam. They fought a war in Iraq based on "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that did not exist. Then there is this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6222677/How-world-sold-monstrous-lie-Lockerbie.html

My 'favourite' conspiracy story is the whole statin/CVD/saturated fat mess. That is hardly surprising because I actually discovered for myself just how 'harmless' statins are, and I actually talked to many people on my walks who confirmed that they or their friends had been burned by these drugs. This was the only significant medical problem I have had since age 6, and it was caused by corruption in the medical research establishment.

Once you encounter one form of corruption like this, you start to realise just how easily we can all be mislead, despite our media, and the internet, and freedom of speech.

However, all of that fades when compared to the amazing fact that we seem to have been grossly mislead about the nature of consciousness!

David

 

[Steve]

It also fits the US style of behaviour. It is now accepted (I think) that the Vietnam war was started deliberately when a US warship steamed inside the territorial waters of North Vietnam. They fought a war in Iraq based on "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that did not exist. Then there is this:

How does this ‘fit’? This bomb brought about the end of the war. False flags like 9/11, WMD and The Gulf of Tonkin incident (and many more) were all to start wars!

Yeah, Lockerbie was bullshit, Iraq was bullshit, Syria is bullshit...etc etc. I’m in no doubt about anything that we are fed by our governments being at best doubtful, any truth is usually simply coincidental, if they’re telling the truth it’s just because it favours the story they want to get across. That is why I find it hard to accept since I’ve become aware that we’re living under such illusions. We blindly accept delusional psychotic thinking as ‘the norm’. People like me and many others that don’t blindly believe are deemed ‘the enemy’, ‘traitor’, ‘a ’bot’, a conspiracy theorist or basically ridiculed and rubbished.

At first glance I’d be in favour of scrapping all governments. Smaller, less powerful regional, maybe by county (UK) looking after themselves. I really believe that if countries were people, they’d be messed up mentally, psychotic! The EU (look at the way they dealt or rather ignored, the heavy handed way the Spanish govt dealt with the Catalan’s), the British and certainly the US just for starters.

All that being said, I don’t know if we’d be capable of changing. Our consciousness would have to rise, our emotional intelligence would have to increase, basically we don’t yet have enough Love. So why worry too much about something we are, in reality, forced to accept. I suffered a stroke because of my unwillingness to accept what I saw as ‘unfair’ at work. Was that fair? I have never felt that it was unfair on me, it was MY DOING, no one else’s - ironic eh? It’s true, we’re complicated beings.

As (I think) Alex said in his latest episode with Freke and Cox, what’s interesting is not the facts, the details, but the psychology (and more?) behind it all? (9/11, etc It would take too long to check exactly what Alex said, apologies if I got it wrong)In any event, this is what is of interest to me.

 

[David Bailey]

How does this ‘fit’? This bomb brought about the end of the war. False flags like 9/11, WMD and The Gulf of Tonkin incident (and many more) were all to start wars!

Yeah, Lockerbie was bullshit, Iraq was bullshit, Syria is bullshit...etc etc. I’m in no doubt about anything that we are fed by our governments being at best doubtful, any truth is usually simply coincidental, if they’re telling the truth it’s just because it favours the story they want to get across. That is why I find it hard to accept since I’ve become aware that we’re living under such illusions. We blindly accept delusional psychotic thinking as ‘the norm’. People like me and many others that don’t blindly believe are deemed ‘the enemy’, ‘traitor’, ‘a ’bot’, a conspiracy theorist or basically ridiculed and rubbished.

First, it is nice to see that you agree with the true nature of US militarism (at least pre Trump).

Well assuming nuclear weapons are a hoax, I suppose originally the purpose of the deception was to get Japan to surrender, and maybe to deter the USSR continuing to fight to gain territory. There was a clear and obvious reason to deceive back then.

The suggestion in those videos was that the USSR/Russia are in on the hoax - and indeed presumably every other country that has such weapons.

I suppose I see the Neocons as being most interested in making money out of war and weapons. You can make a hell of a lot of money out of making tit for tat weapons enhancements (ICBMs, anti-missile missiles, etc), and you can make money out of conventional wars like the Iraq war. Without the concept of nuclear weapons, there wouldn't be so much fear to justify yet more arms building.

The analogy with the cholesterol/statins/saturated fat saga seems suggestive. After a while people have discovered how to make money out of the status quo, and nobody wants the embarrassment of admitting it was all BS, so the whole nonsense continues.

I do want to stress - I don't want to claim that this is real, but I do find it intriguing that others have had the same thought as me!

David

 

[JoeR]

I am very loath to going down the road of redefining words and phrases. As far as I am concerned 'Magic' has to mean something recognisably like we always thought it meant, or we shouldn't use the word. If 'injecting belief' simply means giving someone a motivational pep-talk then I certainly don't think the process should be called magic. If however, the 'injection' was done in some more subtle way - say by appearing to the person in his/her dreams, then I guess that would count as magic.

David

Hi David,
Sorry for the late reply, I've traveling for work. The point I was trying to make with my comments about Magic, is that like you I also thought magic needed that "paranormal" or "supernatural" component you reference to be "magic".

This is cut and paste from the definition of Magic in the Online Oxford Dictionary:

"The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
‘suddenly, as if by magic, the doors start to open’"

In ancient times convincing others you could summon supernatural forces to your aid, whether you actually could or not, would certainly be helpful in deterring enemies or controlling the King's subjects, etc. Perhaps I am lowering the bar from your perspective to suggest if the "method" works and the subject is influenced as intended, then that is also magic even if the supernatural component didn't actually exist anywhere except in the mind of the subject being influenced. At that point it becomes "real", at least to the person affected, and why I was suggesting injecting belief is "magic".

Also, I'm proposing there is overlap between magic, science and alchemy, it's not an "either/or" in all cases, but a "both/and" in at least some cases. This is what I meant in the earlier post about it being more of a "spectrum", than different subjects with clearly defined boundaries. The boundaries are "fuzzy" and change over time.

Anyway, I hope I haven't hijacked the thread as it went in a completely different direction since my last post but wanted to clarify my point.

 

[David Bailey]

At first glance I’d be in favour of scrapping all governments. Smaller, less powerful regional, maybe by county (UK) looking after themselves. I really believe that if countries were people, they’d be messed up mentally, psychotic! The EU (look at the way they dealt or rather ignored, the heavy handed way the Spanish govt dealt with the Catalan’s), the British and certainly the US just for starters.

The trouble is, you would end up with a world government, and the UN seems to be degenerating at the moment. I used to like the EU because it was anti-war, but when the EU started to meddle with the Ukraine, I thought again.

All that being said, I don’t know if we’d be capable of changing. Our consciousness would have to rise, our emotional intelligence would have to increase, basically we don’t yet have enough Love. So why worry too much about something we are, in reality, forced to accept.

The thing is, I think the vast majority of people are better than that. The problem is that government and power concentrates the very worst people at the top.

As (I think) Alex said in his latest episode with Freke and Cox, what’s interesting is not the facts, the details, but the psychology (and more?) behind it all? (9/11, etc It would take too long to check exactly what Alex said, apologies if I got it wrong)In any event, this is what is of interest to me.

I only heard a minute or so, when one of them said that he didn't know much about the carbon problem, so didn't want to offer an opinion. That is fine, but why have him on to talk (among other things) about global warming? I guess I will listen to t he rest of it before too long!

David

 

[David Bailey]

In ancient times convincing others you could summon supernatural forces to your aid, whether you actually could or not, would certainly be helpful in deterring enemies or controlling the King's subjects, etc. Perhaps I am lowering the bar from your perspective to suggest if the "method" works and the subject is influenced as intended, then that is also magic even if the supernatural component didn't actually exist anywhere except in the mind of the subject being influenced. At that point it becomes "real", at least to the person affected, and why I was suggesting injecting belief is "magic".

Yes but if you redefine magic in that way, it loses 99.9% of its interest as far as I am concerned!

Perhaps a more useful definition would be using consciousness (one's own or a discarnate consciousness) directly (i.e. not via its control of the body) to manipulate a situation.

David