The Atomic Bomb Hoax(?)

[Jerry Russell]

Truth: It is impossible for a reactor to explode like a nuclear weapon; these weapons contain very special materials in very particular configurations, neither of which are present in a nuclear reactor.

If we are going to rely on the ANS (a trade association) as an authority: isn't it curious that they are implicitly endorsing the fact that nuclear weapons do explode, owing to their very special materials and very particular configurations?

while I'd like to believe his Masonic connection, I also have to remain cautious

Thanks for the skepticism! Although Masonic Hall of St. Helens states that Einstein was a Freemason, they don't present any evidence. With a quick Google search, the closest thing I could find to a source for this rumor is here:

http://www.james-c-spencer.com/einstein-goes-bananas.html

In January 1933, Albert Einstein and his wife Eloise travelled through the Panama Canal and made a secret stop in Puerto Armuelles. There is speculation that Einstein was setting up an "underground railway" for Jews escaping the coming horror in Europe.... Hank Blair, was reportedly a mason and speculation abounds that he was working with Einstein to help refugees escape the coming holocaust in Europe, using the Great White Fleet of banana boats owned by the United Fruit Company. Despite the belief held by many, Einstein, it appears was NOT a freemason. However, he may have had contacts in the craft that enabled him to help Jewish musicians and intellectuals to escape to America.​

 

[Emma Robertson]

If we are going to rely on the ANS (a trade association) as an authority: isn't it curious that they are implicitly endorsing the fact that nuclear weapons do explode, owing to their very special materials and very particular configurations?

No, I don't find it curious. If they know that atomic bombs don't explode they cannot affirm it publicly or they will incurr censorship.
And it is also possible that they honestly believe, like many, that it's true that atomic bombs explode. If they haven't done personal tests themselves it's quite possible. The Swedish believed it worked and made their own experimentation to develop the bomb. They then decided not to go on, probably because they found out it didn't work.

Anders Björkman, the person who is affirming that they cannot explode, lived in Japan and noticed that there were no signs of atomic explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that's why he became suspicious and reasoned about the functioning of the bomb.

 

[Emma Robertson]

That's fair. I want to be an honest and trustworthy moderator. So I've moved my comments back to the 6th post in the thread, where they had been linked to an older thread before.

Thank you, I truly appreciate that.

 

[Tyrone McCloskey]

This topic/debate has always exhausted me. I have family going back to the war involved in military/nuclear stuff and they lived on a need to know basis, whatever their specialty. And they followed orders. Like me, a civilian, they were told things they must accept as fact, and they have studied theories, tested components and the gone home and watched the news (just like me). I have never had them shake me of my atheism regarding this vengeful, bloodthirsty, technocratic replacement for Yahweh and all the other archetypal desert gods that have flavored the literary tropes that make up official history.
The argument isn't, at root, about military strategy, or very wealthy people annihilating masses of little people over ideological differences (which they have created and promoted as part of their divide and conquer strategy), or even controlling resources (which their banks have a firm grip on). The argument has come down to attempting to scale two emotionally challenging firewalls: Scientists who believe the weapons can destroy on a large scale who then use their acumen to convince lay people that the science is sound, if largely incomprehensible, like bishops of old trying to convince the ignorant that their souls are forever in the balance and that compliance with authority will assure salvation (once they are mercifully dead, of course) and the stray eyewitness/victims of "tests" claiming their health has been severely compromised by what the doctors who treat them get them to accept regarding the cause and nature of their condition. (Visionaries who have born witness to the Almighty ablaze in His justifiable wrath).
Herman Kahn, Fritz Kraemer, Heinz Alfred Kissinger, Dr. Strangelove- I just can't exist in a paradigm where these clowns dictate reality. The billiard balls rolling around on the cosmic green felt of our solar system have more say in what civilizations come and go by natural means than these homunculi shekeleering for the financial ogres that presume to control us.
I guess what I'm bellyaching about is that there will never be enough proof from my vantage point to buy into the concept of nukes so I'm just not going to lose sleep over it.
No help here.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Tyrone, welcome back.

Scientists who believe the weapons can destroy on a large scale who then use their acumen to convince lay people that the science is sound, if largely incomprehensible

I guess I'm one of those scientists, though I don't think there's anything incomprehensible about it. On the contrary, I see a huge difference between science and old-time religion: the science is all based on reproducible experiments & straightforward thinking.

and the stray eyewitness/victims of "tests" claiming their health has been severely compromised by what the doctors who treat them get them to accept regarding the cause and nature of their condition.

This is the part that really ought to be convincing. There aren't just a few stray eyewitnesses, there should be thousands or tens of thousands of witnesses to the many above-ground tests. And they're easy to find. There are many posts to the Internet. Some of them are interviewed in the video above in this thread. If you cared to, you could call some up to verify that they tell the same story. This is still oral history of living eyewitnesses, although this time will end due to the above-ground test ban treaty.

They say they've seen and experienced these gigantic nuclear fireballs, which can't possibly be mistaken for anything else. Even if they're told to look the other way, they see the light so bright that it burns through the back of their head to their eyeballs.

And they know about their health conditions, which are also very real. How else would you explain their strange diseases, if not caused by radioactive fallout from the tests they witnessed?

It's an entirely different situation with witnesses to Yahweh. They are generally testifying to some vague internal spiritual feeling, not to anything real that anyone could touch.

I guess what I'm bellyaching about is that there will never be enough proof from my vantage point to buy into the concept of nukes so I'm just not going to lose sleep over it.

I think that anybody who really wanted to know, could directly confirm the existence of nuclear weapons by getting a seismograph, and locating it near a test site. The earth movements associated with nuclear blasts are very distinctive, with rapid onset of intense vibrations. Easily distinguished from earthquakes, and too powerful to be anything else.

If there never could be enough proof, aren't you expressing a sort of religious conviction that nukes don't exist? Perhaps based on a dislike of the Kahn, Kissinger & Strangelove types who have created them?

Not trying to make you lose sleep, though....

 

[Tyrone McCloskey]

“When the flash hit you, you could see the x-rays of your hands through your closed eyes,” he said. “Then the heat hit you, and that was as if someone my size had caught fire and walked through me. It was an experience that was unearthing. It was so strange. There were guys with bruises and broken legs. We couldn’t believe it. To say it was frightening is an understatement. I think it all shocked us into silence.”
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wjk3wb/what-does-a-nuclear-bomb-blast-feel-like
(That sounds like it would be fatal)

“And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone; and the heads of the horses were like the heads of lions, and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
“By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.”
Rev. 9:17-18

The refitting from religion to scientism is so exact at times it makes my head hurt. Too pat.
https://endtimestruth.com/world-war-iii/nuclear-war-great-tribulation/

My gripe about eyewitness testimony is that these guys were military. Are they still? The concept of the lifetime actor is not unfamiliar here.

Somewhere in the pile of topics on this subject at Clues Forum, there is testimony of a Japanese woman who claimed that Hiroshima was evacuated days before the bomb was dropped. She told this to a Clues member, not to a media source. Doesn't mean that's real, either. The forum members also look at the hinky photos and I remind everyone that our sole source for nuclear blast films is the military.

Not an ironclad argument, granted, and I think an atheist can be just as stubborn as a zealot. I should label myself an agnostic with some prejudice.

 

[Jerry Russell]

My gripe about eyewitness testimony is that these guys were military. Are they still?

No, you would need more than an entire city full of lifetime actors. The last of the above ground tests at Nevada Test Site were in 1962. The mushroom clouds were easily visible from Las Vegas and St. George, Utah. The kids who saw those explosions would be about my age.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/atomic-tourism-nevada/

...The mushroom cloud associated with the bomb became an icon for Las Vegas, adorning postcards, candy, toys, showgirls' headdresses and more. Las Vegas establishments like the Flamingo and the Sands hawked the Atomic Cocktail, the Atomic Hairdo and Miss Atomic Bomb beauty contests.​

​

Atomic Tourism​

​

The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce issued a calendar for tourists, listing the scheduled times of the bomb detonations and the best places to view them. The Sky Room at the Desert Inn, offering a panoramic view of the Nevada horizon, was a favorite watch spot of tourists, as was nearby Mount Charleston. Many tourists packed "atomic box lunches" and had picnics as close to ground zero as the government restrictions would allow. On the eve of detonations, many Las Vegas businesses held "Dawn Bomb Parties." Beginning at midnight, guests would drink and sing until the flash of the bomb lit up the night sky.​

​

One Bomb Every Three Weeks for 12 Years​

​

In addition to generating tourism, the Nevada Test Site also brought thousands of military personnel, thousands of jobs and more than $176 million in federal funds to the region, two-thirds of which went back into Las Vegas' economy. For twelve years, an average of one bomb every three weeks was detonated, at a total of 235 bombs. Flashes from the explosions were so powerful that they could reportedly be seen from as far away as Montana.​

http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,948447,00.html

During the early 1950s, parents in the little town of St. George in southwestern Utah often woke their children up at 6 a.m., hustled them to the top of Black Hill on the western edge of the community, and let them watch the mushroom clouds rising into the dawn sky over the atomic-bomb testing site in neighboring Nevada. ... A generation later, the awe has turned into fear. Studies now show that an unusually high number of those Utah youngsters exposed to nuclear fallout eventually died of leukemia.​

​

Can you imagine what a propaganda disaster it would be, if the major mass media were all promoting or reporting on nuclear tourism in Las Vegas, and yet the explosions weren't really happening as advertised? How many outraged tourists would complain to all their friends? An unprecedented number of people would wind up red-pilled in the aftermath, and would never believe anything that the government or the media told them, not ever again. In this case, the reports in the mass media are self-verifying.

 

[Richard Stanley]

It's too bad the Russians don't expose all this as a hoax. Bastard sukin sins (sons of bitches)

Oh ... right!!! I said they're all in on IT. Western Bastards of the eastern variety.

 

[Emma Robertson]

No, you would need more than an entire city full of lifetime actors. The last of the above ground tests at Nevada Test Site were in 1962. The mushroom clouds were easily visible from Las Vegas and St. George, Utah.

Can you imagine what a propaganda disaster it would be, if the major mass media were all promoting or reporting on nuclear tourism in Las Vegas, and yet the explosions weren't really happening as advertised?

Definitely the explosions occured. But what actually exploded? We don't know. We are being told it was atomic bombs, but it could be anything.
Actually the very fact that such tourism was created convince me even more that the bombs were fake, because with such tourism they were gathering enough eyewitnesses to prove that the bombs were real. Not only that: in this way they could also gather enough people to expose to radiations to claim later that atomic radiations are deadly. It could then be easy to fake medical studies proving that leucemia affected eyewitnesses.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Definitely the explosions occured. But what actually exploded? We don't know.

If the tourists were not watching atomic bombs, then what? Something bright enough, loud enough, and creating a big enough mushroom cloud, that no one had any doubt these were atomic bombs?

The largest conventional bomb ever used is the MOAB bomb, which contains 18,700 pounds of explosives. That's 9 tons. The nuclear weapons exploded in these tests were anywhere from 10 to 100 kilotons -- that's 1,000 to 10,000 times bigger. The difference between nuclear vs. conventional weapons is huge.

How would it be easy to cause the eyewitnesses to get leukemia afterwards? Slip radium in all their cocktails? How are you going to convince someone that they are dying of leukemia, if that's not what's going on? Do you believe that a geiger counter would have detected radiation falling from the sky after one of these explosions?

Do you realize that before nuclear bombs were invented, already people were getting sick and dying from radiation? For example, Marie Curie, who coined the term "radioactive"? And, the "Radium Girls", who painted watch dials with radioactive luminous paint between 1917 and 1926?

Emma, I can only repeat what I said earlier to Tyrone. You seem to have a faith-based religious conviction, that nuclear weapons do not exist. There is no evidence that could ever convince you otherwise.

 

[Emma Robertson]

If the tourists were not watching atomic bombs, then what? Something bright enough, loud enough, and creating a big enough mushroom cloud, that no one had any doubt these were atomic bombs?

Between the visual mushroom and the sound several seconds elapsed. They said it was because of distance. Yet when I see fireworks in the sky that are just few kilometers from me (in Nevada tourists were about 5 km from the explosions) there is no relevant delay in the sound of the explosions (might be 1 or 2 seconds at most).

This detail makes me think that the visual effect was produced by something that did not make any sound, like a lot of dust, which was followed by actual bombs exploding (normal bombs). If the sound was different from normal bombs, then it could be anything that militaries had developed that had to be a secret. In fireworks we see many gadgets that make different sounds, so there is no limit to the sounds that can be developed. The same for the mushroom cloud.

How would it be easy to cause the eyewitnesses to get leukemia afterwards? Slip radium in all their cocktails? How are you going to convince someone that they are dying of leukemia, if that's not what's going on?

By fake medical studies I meant that we do not really know if eyewitnesses died from leukemia. For example we have fake medical studies to prove that chemotherapy works, so anything is possible.

You seem to have a faith-based religious conviction, that nuclear weapons do not exist. There is no evidence that could ever convince you otherwise.

I could say the same of you. But it's fine.

The point is that the elite wants to live in this world on the surface after the apocalypse. And wants to cause an apocalypse, which means a lot of destruction. So how do you envision this destruction will take place? If they are going to use atomic bombs to perform that, then what about the deadly radiations that will afflict the surface for eons?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Between the visual mushroom and the sound several seconds elapsed. They said it was because of distance. Yet when I see fireworks in the sky that are just few kilometers from me (in Nevada tourists were about 5 km from the explosions) there is no relevant delay in the sound of the explosions (might be 1 or 2 seconds at most).

The speed of sound is 343 meters per second. If indeed you experience only 2 seconds of delay at your fireworks display, your location must be only 700 meters from the fireworks.

Here's a map of the Nevada Test Site: http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strange-places/nevada-test-site-map-1992/

This shows that the town of Mercury, NV is located near the southeast corner of the test range. It's a distance of 90km from downtown Las Vegas. The tests were further away than that. The sonic delay should be over 4 minutes.

Where does this information come from, that the Nevada tourists were only 5km from the explosions? I can imagine that some intrepid hikers might have gotten that close, perhaps hopping military fences to do so. But not these tourists, at their hotel:

And don't go telling me the image is fake. If that were the case, everybody in Las Vegas at the time would've been wise to the deception.

By fake medical studies I meant that we do not really know if eyewitnesses died from leukemia. For example we have fake medical studies to prove that chemotherapy works, so anything is possible.

If I show you a study that says eyewitnesses died from leukemia, that's a sort of evidence. If I show you a video of an eyewitness who says he saw a nuclear explosion, and who says he's dying of leukemia, that's another piece of evidence.

And there certainly are medical studies that show that chemotherapy works. People in my own family have survived for decades after having chemotherapy for cancer. Cancer mortality rates for some types of cancers, especially childhood cancers, are down dramatically.

Chemotherapy might not work as well as we'd like it to. But it does work, and the evidence is readily available.

Now, if you believe that the studies are fake, you need to show some evidence of that. How was the fraud accomplished, and why?

You don't get to just express blanket skepticism. That's not how evidence works.

The point is that the elite wants to live in this world on the surface after the apocalipse. And wants to cause an apocalipse, which means a lot of destruction. So how do you envision this destruction will take place? If they are going to use atomic bombs to perform that, then what about the deadly radiations for eons that will afflict the surface?

Richard would say they aren't going to use the nuclear bombs. I would say that climate change, economic & agricultural failure, and disease could do the job just as effectively.

Or maybe the nuclear arsenals will get used, in spite of the elite's best laid plans to the contrary. In that case, and in spite of their hopes to live in this world, they won't be able to.

 

[Emma Robertson]

If the tourists were not watching atomic bombs, then what? Something bright enough, loud enough, and creating a big enough mushroom cloud, that no one had any doubt these were atomic bombs?

"We often associate nuclear explosions with terrifying mushroom clouds but actually both chemical and nuclear reactions can produce these kinds of clouds. Even naturally occurring volcanic eruptions can produce them. These clouds can form at any altitude from the sudden release and expansion of gases that are less dense than the air around them. The cloud is buoyant so it rises rapidly. Instability inside the cloud creates turbulent vortices that curl downward around the edges forming a vortex ring that draws up a central column or stem. "
http://sciexplorer.blogspot.com/2015/01/chemical-explosions-versus-nuclear.html

"A mushroom cloud is a distinctive pyrocumulus mushroom-shaped cloud of debris/smoke and usually condensed water vapor resulting from a large explosion. The effect is most commonly associated with a nuclear explosion, but any sufficiently energetic detonation or deflagration will produce the same effect. They can be caused by powerful conventional weapons, like thermobaric weapons, including the ATBIP and GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast. Some volcanic eruptions and impact events can produce natural mushroom clouds."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud

 

[Jerry Russell]

We often associate nuclear explosions with terrifying mushroom clouds but actually both chemical and nuclear reactions can produce these kinds of clouds.

Yes, but the nuclear weapons tests were up to 100,000 tons yield (the Sedan test was the biggest) while the MOAB bomb is 11 tons yield. The nuclear weapons were up to 10,000 times bigger. The difference would be completely obvious, in the size of the fireball and the mushroom cloud. To complete the proof, we'd have to calculate the predicted sizes for the two types of weapon, and then compare to the pictures.

 

[Emma Robertson]

People are so gullible, they will believe almost anything. Will it be sufficient for propaganda effect, to post some pictures of fake bombs, or maybe even carpet bomb a real city? That's the claim for Hiroshima, but I don't think the Japanese were so gullible back then.

Actually it's not only Anders Björkman, who claims that atomic bombs are fake, but also this Japanese author:

Here is its review on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Object-Exploding-Nuclear-Weapons/dp/1545516839/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Akio Nakatani is a Professor of Applied Mathematics and Statistics. His research interests include Stochastic Systems, Parameter Estimation, Stochastic Optimization, Monte Carlo Methods and Simulation, Neural Networks, Statistical Pattern Recognition, Statistical Image Analysis, Time Series, Graphical Models, Nonparametric Bayes and Bayesian Hierarchical Models.

PRODUCT INFO – Death Object
Trickery is the way of war - thus has it always been. But the nuclear trick is the biggest, boldest and baddest-ass scam in all of mankind’s ancient and eternal quest for power and profit through mass slaughter. DEATH OBJECT takes you behind the curtain and reveals the empty sound stage. The science, the history, the misery, the mystery – the full hoax is covered.

The DOD and the security agencies all have amply-paid COINTELPRO media staff devoted to jackbooting publications that get the masses a little too ‘interested” for their own good. They’ll be on here trashing and thrashing this book within an inch of its life. Don’t fall for that. You may have to duck, but you don’t have to let them cover you with manure. DEATH OBJECT packs more evidential meat into a couple hundred tightly reasoned pages than any existing nuclear hoax website, conspiracy forum, blog series or YouTube video. Every element of the atomic bomb scam, the founding myth of the technological age, is tied to every other, coalescing into an unanswerable exposé.

Here are some readers' reviews:

I was merely expecting a book with eye-witness testimony from Japanese that contradicted the official story that nukes are real. The book includes that, but so much more. The book did numerous scientific analysis of the various first nuke tests and actual alleged nuke explosions in Japan. Any engineer who is familiar with the engineering design to test to deployment cycle from experience will at the very least, suspect something is very fishy with the reality of nukes ever existing. I have no doubt that attempts to create nukes occurred. But at some point late in WWII, it was determined that a chain reaction fast enough to make an actual nuke explosion was not possible. But to end the war, the psy op of nukes was still used. The book's scope was mainly limited to the first nukes and first hydrogen bombs, so it does not speculate beyond why Japan would go also with the nuke charade. Japan found the charade to be an adequate excuse to surrender to the USA (to save face among their own proud people), even though apparently the real reason they surrendered was due to the Soviet Union declaration of war against Japan after the alleged nuking. The implications of this book are far beyond what I can imagine, and thus make this a must read for anyone willing to go beyond standard storytelling on the matter.

This is the first book about the Nuclear Hoax that I know of. So the five stars are first of all for the author, who dares to write such a book in these times, where political correctness is key to success. For someone who never informed himself about the topic I still recommend to watch the coresponding videos on youtube, just to make clear that we are talking about official footage. I also recommend the analysis of Miles Mathis concerning Trinity and the Bikini Atoll tests. The official site has already reacted by a new campaign called "Denying history" , but as always they can't defend the illogicality and the contradiction against simple physics, but emphasize on the problem to keep such a conspiracy a secret.

This is a good book. Prof. Akio Nakatani has carefully checked the 1942/5 American war time scientific research and industrial developments to produce three nuclear terror bombs and concludes that (1) military explosive fission producing in nano-seconds a FLASH and radiation vaporizing any observer in the vicinity and making the ground inhabitable for 500 years doesn't work and is propaganda any time, (2) that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed spring 1945 by standard napalm carpet bombings, and (3) that the the whole show of American a-bombs destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki late summer August 1945 was pure propaganda to scare the shit out of normal people. The towns were already destroyed, which was kept secret by Japanese and American censorship.

It is very common for people to think that just because there was radiation, therefore a nuclear explosion occurred, either by fission or fusion. If they wanted to fake the whole thing they could very well have used dirty bombs with radioactive material that just gets spread throughout the area to generate the false evidence of a nuclear blast. Just playing the devil's advocate here.

Nuclear weapons hoax argument was very hard for me to get my head around. I finally decided that there wasn't one piece of legitimate evidence that "I" could verify that proved that nuclear weapons exist. Literally everything that has been put forward as evidence for nukes being real is producible through conventional explosives/ incendiaries, trick photography, or just good old fashioned State sponsored lies. Craters can be caused by conventional explosives as well. On the other hand, every piece of relevant evidence that i could verify is completely consistent with nukes being a hoax.

Why on Earth would the US drop poisonous nuclear bombs on tens of thousands of defenceless women and children when conventional weapons would've done the job just as well?
How could the Japanese immediately repopulate an irradiated city?
Why do the pictures of destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima look just like the pictures of destroyed Tokyo?
Why is there no crater, or even a bald spot directly under what we are told was a fifteen kiloton explosion?
Why was there never any outcry about the violation of 1925 Geneva Convention laws against the use of poisonous weapons?
Why were nukes never used in the Korean or Vietnam wars?
Why didn't the Russians use them during their war in Afghanistan?
Isn't it convenient that the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only after the Germans, Italians, and Japanese were soundly defeated, and in no position to dispute the story?
What better deception could you imagine to fleece and terrorize the masses into submission to the godlike power of the State?

Robert Oppenheimer, Niels Bohr & Co no doubt assisted developing the a-bomb 1942/5 at Los Alamos in the USA but they failed completely. Explosive fission didn’t work and exist. So somebody decided to fake it. It was easy. Everything was secret and censorship ensured that the public didn’t know anything. The Japanese were very happy to play along just to stop WW2 by unconditional surrender 9/45.
But the unfortunate result was that particular interests maintained that a-bombs were real. Luckily there was Manne Siegbahn, Swedish Nobel prize winner physics who was asked by the Swedish government to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Manne agreed subject to all being peer reviewed and official. No chance. Rockefeller gave Manne $1M to shut up.
But a fake a-bomb would be useless unless the enemy also could use it. So Stalin suddenly built his fake a-bomb that exploded 1949. But how? Aha – Stalin used uranium provided by Wismut AG, Germany, a company created and owned 100% by Stalin 1945. A friend of mine worked for Wismut AG and found that the whole company was a hoax. Wismut AG never produced any Uranium at all. My German friend had later been arrested by KGB and tortured by Stasi and with luck excaped to the West.

I purchased the book fearing that it would be the typical conspiracy theory nutcase job, but I was so wrong.
This book is well written and although short (about 210 pages) is full of insightful points that makes you question the unquestionable.
The only shortcoming from the book is that the author sometimes tries to make use of humour and/or clever remarks that makes hard to understand his train of thought. Nevertheless a very welcomed work to my library. I also wished the author (a professor of applied mathematician and statistics) had published his numerical / statistical model(s) of fission which he says is proof that nukes (both gun-type uranium little-boy as well as plutonium implosion fat-man) are a hoax, but he couldnt out of fear of being prosecuted or worse.

 

[Emma Robertson]

"We often associate nuclear explosions with terrifying mushroom clouds but actually both chemical and nuclear reactions can produce these kinds of clouds.

Yes, but the nuclear weapons tests were up to 100,000 tons yield (the Sedan test was the biggest) while the MOAB bomb is 11 tons yield. The nuclear weapons were up to 10,000 times bigger. The difference would be completely obvious, in the size of the fireball and the mushroom cloud. To complete the proof, we'd have to calculate the predicted sizes for the two types of weapon, and then compare to the pictures.

What I have found is that conventional bombs mushrooms clouds can reach 10 miles eight, while atomic bombs mushroom clouds can reach 40 miles eight. You mean that to create a mushroom cloud that is 4 times bigger it is necessary to use an amount of tons yield that is almost 100,000 times bigger? I doubt that. While it's easier to believe that conventionals bombs can reach the eight of 40 miles, it's just that we have never been told that they were conventional bombs, and have been called atomic bomb explosions instead...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/09/ukraine-mushroom-cloud-nuclear-atom-bomb-weapon_n_6643554.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIgy3G3kfgxLEhyi-PkvFyR9_8w4v-dUTTWapqTREVthlvRWSbUJ2yxRFLZyZXO46G9XbPoANBk5GFMVcZ1yYRhXcKtJYtpCbX6MiLWQeUsfqUqjbFK0qsAFtAP5AOq_EYomC3JHpRnStNGvw1eR-mg-OWQD-Mo3kagqVPkZfjol

"A huge explosion rocked the Ukrainian city of Donetsk on Sunday night, causing many to assume a tactical nuclear weapon was being detonated.

Early reports suggest the mushroom cloud was caused by a Ukrainian army attack on an ammunitions depot of the rebel Donetsk People’s Republic.

"The epicenter of the blast was near DKZHI," co-chairman of the anti-Kiev People’s Front Konstantin Dolgov said on his Facebook page.

Dr Douglas McGregor, a researcher in Nuclear Physics at the University of Glasgow, told the Huffington Post: "To my mind the videos show a large explosion, which is most likely to be a very large conventional explosion.

"However, from the pictures I could not categorically rule out a small nuclear explosion. The acid test will be to monitor to see if there is any radioactivity in the vicinity when observers gain access to the site."

 

[Tyrone McCloskey]

I agree that ping pong is more interesting than thermonuclear detonations but only seven of the fourteen inhabitants of all Las Vegas seem to be "in on it". And since when is standing on a diving board, but blocked by a tree, considered a primo vantage point? The guy at the bottom, third from left, seems to be in mid flight, though if he was startled enough to take wing, you'd think his arms would start flapping. I'd say the cloud was done in pastels rather than a white grease pencil. Yes, Jerry, I am a religious zealot on this topic. But only because my beliefs are based on the premise that both sides of a conflict as large as the Cold War are controlled by the same forces, so committing mass murder over- phhhttt!- ideological differences... sorry, my paradigm can't contain such, IMO, utter laughable notions. Beyond that, the only thing available to me in the here and now is hearsay and MSM flavored echoes of a much more gullible time. Agreeing to disagree if that's okay for now.

 

[Emma Robertson]

I'd say the cloud was done in pastels rather than a white grease pencil.

Hi Tyrone, at this point of my research the most plausible explanation is that those in Nevada were real explosions, but of unusually large conventional bombs, not atomic ones. There is too much evidence of explosions really happening (craters, eyewitnesses). This is just a picture out of many and the attitute of eyewitness can be explained in many ways. They might simply be used to bombs explosions and not particularly impressed.

As for radiation, as it has been said in the comments to Akio Nakatani's book, dirty bombs containing radioactive material make the same effect as nuclear bombs.

But I agree that the major problem for people to accept that possibility is the amplitude of the deception involved.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Why on Earth would the US drop poisonous nuclear bombs on tens of thousands of defenceless women and children when conventional weapons would've done the job just as well?

Because they wanted to demonstrate their new weapon, which could kill more people at lower cost than any other weapon ever developed.

How could the Japanese immediately repopulate an irradiated city?

The people who "repopulated" were the same ones who had just been irradiated by the initial explosion. It was not an easy time to become a refugee in another city. So, many of those who could, chose to stay behind and live, rebuilding as necessary.

The vast majority of radioactivity in an air-burst explosion goes upward into the mushroom cloud, and is distributed over a wide area. See:

https://zidbits.com/2013/11/is-nagasaki-and-hiroshima-still-radioactive/

Most of the Midwestern US was irradiated by fallout from the Nevada tests. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Atmospheric_nuclear_testing

Why do the pictures of destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima look just like the pictures of destroyed Tokyo?

Why shouldn't they look the same? What difference should it make if a city is destroyed by carpet bombing and a firestorm, rather than by a single nuke?

Why is there no crater, or even a bald spot directly under what we are told was a fifteen kiloton explosion?

The Hiroshima explosion was at about 1900 feet altitude, while Nagasaki was about 1650 feet. The over-pressure from that altitude was not sufficient to cause a crater.

Why was there never any outcry about the violation of 1925 Geneva Convention laws against the use of poisonous weapons?

To the extent there was an outcry, it was framed in terms of the new and specific horrors of the new weapons, rather than in terms of an old treaty.

And if the USA is violating the Geneva Convention, who are you going to complain to? The USA-controlled United Nations? If you (as a national leader) complain loudly and persistently enough, maybe the USA will lay waste to your country in retribution. Or, beware the CIA instigated regime change.

Why were nukes never used in the Korean or Vietnam wars?
Why didn't the Russians use them during their war in Afghanistan?

Fear of retaliation. The Koreans and Vietnamese were Russian proxies. In Afghanistan, Russia might have been worried about the Chinese.

Isn't it convenient that the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only after the Germans, Italians, and Japanese were soundly defeated, and in no position to dispute the story?

But, the Russians were in an undefeated (although bruised) state, and in an excellent position to dispute the story. And yet, they didn't.

What better deception could you imagine to fleece and terrorize the masses into submission to the godlike power of the State?

Policemen with AR-15's and teargas are also very effective. For that matter, the IRS does a pretty good job, and all they have is a bunch of green shade accountants.

So here's my question: did the author of this series of questions, give even a moment's thought to what the answers are??

 

[Jerry Russell]

A friend of mine worked for Wismut AG and found that the whole company was a hoax.

An anonymous friend of an anonymous book reviewer. How could anyone possibly question evidence like that??

What I have found is that conventional bombs mushrooms clouds can reach 10 miles height, while atomic bombs mushroom clouds can reach 40 miles height.

The height of a mushroom cloud would depend to a large extent on stratospheric conditions. It would rise until dissipated by the wind. One should also compare the brightness and size of the fireball, the size of the base cylinder under the mushroom, and so forth.

If indeed your figures are correct, it should be easy to tell the difference between a 10 mile high cloud, and a 40 mile high cloud. But I'm suspicious that this is the wrong way to measure the size of the blast.

"However, from the pictures I could not categorically rule out a small nuclear explosion. The acid test will be to monitor to see if there is any radioactivity in the vicinity when observers gain access to the site."

I can't rule out a small nuclear explosion, either. The Pentagon admits that tactical nuclear weapons have been designed with yields as small as 18 tons TNT (that's 0.018 kilotons). The Hiroshima bomb was 1,000 times bigger. See:

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-the-worlds-smallest-nuk-1684923814

I agree that ping pong is more interesting than thermonuclear detonations but only seven of the fourteen inhabitants of all Las Vegas seem to be "in on it". And since when is standing on a diving board, but blocked by a tree, considered a primo vantage point? The guy at the bottom, third from left, seems to be in mid flight, though if he was startled enough to take wing, you'd think his arms would start flapping. I'd say the cloud was done in pastels rather than a white grease pencil.

Out of all the inhabitants of Las Vegas, you can't understand why only 14 are in this picture? Out of those 14, four of them have apparently seen it all before. By my count, ten of the fourteen are trying to see the blast.

I agree that the lady behind the tree is problematic, at least at first glance. If the explosion had been bright enough to see through a tree, a few moments before the photo was taken -- that would be quite something, eh? Eyewitnesses say that's how bright those explosions were. Not that I believe you've done the 3D perspective analysis you would need to prove whether she's looking through the tree, or around its edge. Perspective can be deceptive, especially with wide angle lenses.

The guy at the bottom left has never seen a nuke before, so he's excited and his arms are flapping. So what??

A faked mushroom cloud in the picture, using the Photoshop equivalent tools of the day? In that case, you're ignoring my argument that the entire city of Las Vegas would have been well aware that the rumored explosions were bullshit.

But only because my beliefs are based on the premise that both sides of a conflict as large as the Cold War are controlled by the same forces, so committing mass murder over- phhhttt!- ideological differences... sorry, my paradigm can't contain such, IMO, utter laughable notions.

But don't we say that the forces on both sides of WWII were controlled by the same forces? And even so, they committed the maximum amount of mass murder possible given the primitive weapons of the day? (Actually I haven't admitted that Hitler and the Soviets were fully under control of the Illuminati or Anglo-American elite. There's a difference between influence, and control.)

At any rate, mass murder over ideological differences is a thing of the past. We're all capitalists now, and the "InfoWars" are just pissing contests over which set of oligarchs are the more vicious dictators. Or, we baldly admit that we're Whites fighting against Slavs and Arabs and Chinks.

I'm not so sure that the 1950's were a more gullible time. People actually talked to each other back then.

Beyond that, the only thing available to me in the here and now is hearsay and MSM flavored echoes of a much more gullible time. Agreeing to disagree if that's okay for now.

I don't have any gestapo or thought police at my disposal, to force you to agree with me. For that matter, I admit that at the end of the day, this is all MSM flavored hearsay to me too. So if all my argumentation has failed to convince you, what else can I do?

If you're saying that you're bored with nukes, and ready to move on to something else... well, I bet we could indeed find a more interesting topic