The Atomic Bomb Hoax(?)

Emma Robertson

Active Member

"Shortly after the end of World War II, Albert Einstein, referring to the new global danger of nuclear weapons, uttered his now famous warning: “Everything has changed, save the way we think.” Accordingly, he and Robert Oppenheimer established the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to help warn the public about the dangers of nuclear war.
Perhaps the most visible face of the bulletin—for which I am currently co-chair of the board of sponsors—is the “Doomsday Clock.” Created in 1947, the clock graphically reflects how close humanity might be to human-induced apocalypse, in terms of the “number of minutes to midnight”—at which time, presumably, time itself will no longer matter.
In total, the clock has been adjusted 20 times, moving as close to two minutes to midnight in 1953, after the United States and Soviet Union each first tested thermonuclear devices, and as far as 17 minutes to midnight in 1991, after the United States and Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Currently, it is set at five minutes to midnight."

[Wikipedia source?]

J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967) was an American theoretical physicist. During the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer was director of the Los Alamos Laboratory and responsible for the research and design of an atomic bomb. He is often known as the “father of the atomic bomb."

"In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein made the intriguing point that a large amount of energy could be released from a small amount of matter. This was expressed by the equation E=mc2 (energy = mass times the speed of light squared). The atomic bomb would clearly illustrate this principle. But bombs were not what Einstein had in mind when he published this equation. Indeed, he considered himself to be a pacifist. In 1929, he publicly declared that if a war broke out he would "unconditionally refuse to do war service, direct or indirect... regardless of how the cause of the war should be judged." (Ronald Clark, "Einstein: The Life and Times", pg. 428). His position would change in 1933, as the result of Adolf Hitler's ascent to power in Germany. While still promoting peace, Einstein no longer fit his previous self-description of being an "absolute pacifist".
Einstein's greatest role in the invention of the atomic bomb was signing a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt urging that the bomb be built. The splitting of the uranium atom in Germany in December 1938 plus continued German aggression led some physicists to fear that Germany might be working on an atomic bomb."
--Doug Long

If you still cannot see the comedians in Oppenheimer and Einstein let me highlight the obvious: how could somebody who is the father of the atomic bomb actively warn about the dangers of the bomb to the point of creating the Doomsday Clock? What was he thinking to develop when working at the bomb? Some firework?
Einstein is against the bomb, but then he uses his political influence to induce the Americans to make their own bomb, and then participates with Oppenheimer in the creation of the science bulletin to warn about the impending atomic catastrophe.

Something not mentally ok in their mind, or pure comedy...

Another big comedian was J.F.KENNEDY who pretended to be against the war, like Einstein. His assassination came to support the atomic bomb hoax (we are made believe that he was assassined because he wanted to stop the war in Vietnam and the Cold War). Except he certainly did not expect that his comrades would go as far as to kill him to make the hoax more credible).

By Robert Kennedy

"Did US president John F Kennedy intend to end the Cold War with the Soviet Union and get out of Vietnam before he was assassinated 53 years ago?
It is intriguing to contemplate the global implications of these questions - the millions of lives saved, slashed defence budgets, and what an alternative world could be like today.
The idea that Kennedy was moving towards a global peace before he was shot dead in Dallas has been widely disputed.
Renowned American scholar and social activist Noam Chomsky denounces the notion that JFK was serious about ending the Cold War during its height before his murder.
"That's mostly myth. He had no such plans. I've reviewed the evidence repeatedly, including in my book Rethinking Camelot. What's appeared since simply confirms these conclusions," Chomsky told Al Jazeera in an email.
But others argue that Kennedy did intend to end the Cold War with all its nuclear dangers, as well as colonial adventures, starting with the order of all American forces out of Vietnam by 1965.
There's no doubt Kennedy, a World War II naval commander, was a Cold Warrior as a young senator during the 1950s. He believed communism needed to be put down by whatever means necessary.
But then he became US president and looked global nuclear annihilation squarely in face during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis with the Soviet Union. Evidence suggests those 13 days deciding the fate of humanity changed the young American president as he faced the apocalypse.
The Cuban crisis wasn't the first time Kennedy stared nuclear war down the barrel of a gun.
Months into his presidency his generals and admirals in the Joint Chiefs of Staff let him know that all-out nuclear war was on the table over the Berlin crisis as the Soviets built the wall.
The hardline Joint Chiefs weren't messing around. Their Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan included the dropping of 170 atomic and hydrogen bombs on Moscow alone.
Every other main Soviet city - along with those in China and Eastern Europe - was to be incinerated. The estimated death toll was in the hundreds of millions.
Appalled by their willingness to destroy much of the world, Kennedy sought to wrest more presidential control over any nuclear attack and promoted a second plan with limited use of atomic weapons.
The military chiefs became increasingly fed up with Kennedy as he sought paths away from "mutually assured destruction", or MAD as it was ironically called. They were unable to understand his reluctance to use any means necessary to defeat communism.
"At the end of the war, if there are two Americans and one Russian, we win," Air Force General Thomas Power said at the time.
Kennedy angered his national security advisers by repeatedly ignoring their nuclear first-strike plans in Europe and rejecting the military invasion of Cuba.
Vietnam was the final contentious issue between JFK and the militarists before his murder.
As reported by James Douglass in his book JFK and the Unspeakable, Kennedy had recognised France's colonial failure in Vietnam and wished to avoid the trap.
Edmund Gullion was an official in the US consulate when JFK and his 22-year-old brother Robert visited Vietnam in 1951.
"In 20 years there will be no more colonies. We're going nowhere out here," Gullion told Kennedy at the time. "The
French have lost. If we come in here and do the same thing, we will lose, too, for the same reason."
The US generals had other plans, however, not wanting the Southeast Asian dominos to fall to the reds.
On communist gains in Laos and Vietnam, General Lyman Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, promised: "If we are given the right to use nuclear weapons, we can guarantee victory.
At a meeting, Lemnitzer and Air Force General Curtis LeMay again pushed Kennedy for nuclear strikes. JFK walked out in disgust.
"He threw his hands in the air, glanced back at the generals and admirals left in the Cabinet Room, saying, 'These people are crazy,'" according to Douglass' book.
While publicly proclaiming that he wouldn't remove US forces from Vietnam - fearing it would hurt his re-election chances - Kennedy told his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, to order the chiefs to draw up plans to withdraw all American military "advisers" in the country by 1965. The generals stalled.
Three months after JFK's killing, new president Lyndon Johnson confirmed plans by Kennedy to pull out all 16,000 American forces in Vietnam.
"I always thought it was foolish for you to make any statements about withdrawing,"Johnson told McNamara. "But you and the president thought otherwise, and I just sat silent."
After Kennedy's assassination, instead of an end to American involvement in Vietnam, the US deployed 100,000 troops in 1965 - with more than 530,000 in country by 1968 - and a decade of carnage was under way.
Before his death, Kennedy had come to realise that his military hardliners were a greater threat than his arch-enemy, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.
JFK initiated secret back-channel contact with Khrushchev in the form of personal letters. Khrushchev, too, had awakened to the reality of nuclear holocaust during the Cuban crisis. For more than a year the two rivals discussed how to stymie their generals and achieve a lasting peace.
Kennedy's "peace speech" at Washington DC's American University in June 1963 was a plea to his people to understand the communist enemy, despite their differences.
JFK said he didn't want "a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war; not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave".
We'll never know if Kennedy really would have ended the Cold War with Khrushchev and exited Vietnam. He was shot dead in Dallas before he could do so.
Five decades later - with wars and foreign intervention still prominent - it is hard not to imagine what it would be like if JFK had lived - and lived up to his word."
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Hi Emma,

I hope you won't mind that I've edited your post to clean up formatting, and provide proper attribution for quotes.

Long quotes, or quotes of entire articles, could get us in trouble for copyright violations. Please consider posting shorter quotes, selecting paragraphs that you find most interesting. Also, quotes should be:

indented (using the list tool) and italicized,
or else use the "insert quote" tool.

Einstein and Oppenheimer's behavior seems very typically human to me. I doubt that they would have helped with creating the bomb, if it wasn't for the threat that Hitler would get it first. It was a very fearsome time to be Jewish.

If the atomic bomb was fake, what would be Einstein and Oppenheimer's motivation for playing along with the hoax? On the one hand, they would have no worries about Hitler being able to use a fake bomb to defeat that Anglo-Americans. And on the other hand, a fake bomb would be utterly useless for fighting Hitler.

The article about Kennedy is interesting. I personally agree with the author, and with James Douglass, that JFK's change of heart was genuine. And I believe the assassination was a genuine coup by the Deep State. Others on this very website have argued extensively with me about that. Here's the old thread URL:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
If the atomic bomb was fake, what would be Einstein and Oppenheimer's motivation for playing along with the hoax? On the one hand, they would have no worries about Hitler being able to use a fake bomb to defeat that Anglo-Americans. And on the other hand, a fake bomb would be utterly useless for fighting Hitler.

That would be true if the Americans, the British and Hitler were really adversaries. But if we agree that the whole WWII was a conjunct operation to allow the Americans/British/Russians to dominate in Europe and in Japan, then the fake atomic bomb threatened to be developed by the Nazis was a good excuse for the Americans to join in the war.

Besides WWII the fake atomic threat would serve rather as a threat for citizens than a threat to countries.

And ultimately to implement the coming of a fake saviour, the Antichrist, on a worldwide scale to stop WWIII.

Einstein and Oppenheimer's behavior seems very typically human to me. I doubt that they would have helped with creating the bomb, if it wasn't for the threat that Hitler would get it first. It was a very fearsome time to be Jewish.

But that's a very old trick we cannot believe anymore: inventing a threat to have the justification to attack. We should learn from history, this same strategy has been used with Iraq. Iraq accused to be developing the atomic bomb, which was fake and all the fake story of terrorists attacking the US to justify the attack in Middle East...

The Romans did the same with the Jews, to justify their horrible destruction.

With the Nazis the fiction went a step further, as indeed the Nazis attacked other countries, as Japan did later, but it was a crazy war: Germany, Italy and Japan were doomed since the beginning, they could have never won the war. I am of the opinion that Japan's and Germany's corrupted leaders sold their countries to the American/British/Russians by starting a war they knew they would never win.

As for the Nazis here is a review of their technological abilities that overturns what we have been taught to believe, which made the Nazis appear as a bigger threat than it was:

"In my new book The War in the West: Germany Ascendant 1939-1941, first in a three-volume history, I am challenging a number of long-held assumptions about the war, many of which are based on truth by common knowledge, rather than through detailed and painstaking research. My Damascene moment came some years ago when I was being given a tour of the Small Arms Unit at the British Staff College at Shrivenham. I was glancing at a German MG42, known as a “Spandau” by the Allies. “Of course, that was the best machine gun of the war,’ I commented, relaying what I’d read in many books.

“Says who? Says who?” retorted my guide and head of the unit, John Starling. In the next few minutes, he proceeded to deconstruct everything I thought I knew about this infamous weapon: that its phenomenal rate of fire caused massive problems of over-heating, that it was widely inaccurate (for which having since fired one, I can now vouch), that is was incredibly expensive to manufacture, massively over-engineered and lacked certain simple additions that would have made its handling so much easier. The men supporting this weapon not only had to carry vast amounts of ammunition to feed this thirsty beast, they also had to lumber around six spare barrels because of its readiness to over-heat. And each barrel bore multiple inspection stamps. “Which were,” John told me, “an utter waste of time in the middle of total war.”

I was gobsmacked, but this visit led me down an entirely new line of research, and one that was equally revelatory. I began to realize that almost everything the Germans made was over-engineered, from the tanks to gas-mask cases to the field jacket of the lowly landser..."

"...Britain, for example, decided to fight a highly mechanical and technological war. “Steel not flesh” was the mantra and that’s why the British had a small army, yet still ensured it was 100-percent mechanized. They also developed a vast air force and built a staggering 132,500 aircraft during the war — and that’s 50,000 more than the Germans. Until the start of 1944, the priority for manpower in Britain was not the army or navy or even air force, but the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Well-fed men and women were kept in the factories.

Germany, on the other hand, was very under-mechanized but had a vast army, which meant it was dependent on horse-power and foot-slogging infantrymen. As a result of so many German men at the front, their factories were manned by slaves and POWs, who were underfed and treated abominably, and whose production capacity was affected as a result.

And if the ability to supply war was key, then in the war in the West, it was the Battle of the Atlantic that was the decisive theater. Yet Germany built a surface fleet before the war, which could never hope to rival Britain or France and in doing so neglected the U-boat arm. Despite sinking substantial amounts of British supplies in 1940, it was still nothing like enough to even remotely force Britain to her knees. In truth, there were never enough U-boats to more than dent the flow of shipping to Britain. In fact, out of 18,772 sailings in 1940, they sank just 127 ships, that is, 0.7 percent, and 1.4 percent in the entire war.

Suddenly, rather than appearing like David against Goliath and backs-to-the-walls amateurs as is so often depicted, Britain emerges once again as a global super-power in command of the largest trading empire the world has ever seen, while Germany, despite impressive victories on land early in the war appears to be woefully under-resourced and flagrantly squandering what supplies it could call upon".

As for Japan here is another article that downsizes its military power:


Jerry Russell

Staff member
But if we agree that the whole WWII was a conjunct operation to allow the Americans/British/Russians to dominate in Europe and in Japan, then the fake atomic bomb threatened to be developed by the Nazis was a good excuse for the Americans to join in the war.

I do agree that Hitler and Stalin were somehow manipulated by the Anglo-Americans into acting against their own best interests. Whether they were blackmailed, or duped, or truly loyal to some higher hidden authority, is hard to say. But aside from Hitler and Stalin themselves, and whoever was pulling their strings, nearly everyone else was convinced that Germany was in a death struggle against the Allies. The number of insiders to this conspiracy must have been very small.

If indeed the Anglo-Zionists were looking for a way to frighten and threaten the citizens, wouldn't a real atomic bomb be equally as effective for that purpose, as a fake atomic bomb? Why go to the trouble of somehow deceiving hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses, scientists, engineers, technicians into believing a hoax, when they clearly possessed the technology to build a working weapon?