SH Archive Nuclear Weapons: do they exist or not?

[Magnetic]

Such water-filled "bomb craters" could also come from natural methane gas explosions. Near the earth's surface there is methane which reacts explosively with oxygen when escaping. Since methane is unstable in air, it reacts quickly with oxygen to form CO2 and water. The freshly formed water then fills the crater.
I had once the assumption that the so-called volcano-mare in the Eifel of Germany could have originated in such a way. It is also not untypical that there are many such craters in Russia, because there is a lot of trapped methane.

The round ponds/lakes in northern Siberia have a curious feature: they are very shallow with a flat bed. Explosions coming up out of the earth create craters like you would see if an artillery shell penetrated into the earth and exploded. These Siberian craters are flat and shallow therefore explosions of methane cannot be the cause.

 

[Francis_Sansom]

https://fakeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Hiroshima-Revisited.pdf

 

[Prolix]

I watched The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) recently, and it contains an interesting exchange (from my review):

... the threat of the Bomb, even at this early stage, is explicitly identified as one we are told about, not one we see or experience.

Rob: Say, you were at Hiroshima, weren’t you, dad? Didn’t you notice any of the effects of radioactivity on the people who survived the blast?
Al: No, I didn’t. Should I have?
Rob: Well, we’ve been having lectures in atomic energy at school…

It’s curious that Al seems so nonchalant about what he saw at Hiroshima, as if it were no different to any other scene during the war. “You’ve been to all these places and seen everything” says Rob. “I’ve seen nothing, I should have stayed home and found out what was really going on” replies his father.

 

[Catbert]

I have my doubts.
I now have to consider DEW in the form of Tesla's microwave death ray, and the earthquake machine were around long before Tesla.

The radioactive half life narrative is highly suspicious.
It should be something we could easily test with a Geiger counter at Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island.
The reactors all need cooling water, so that conveniently puts them in the traditional location of star forts.

I had read, though for the life of me I cannot remember where, that Tesla reverse-engineered the tech he "discovered"/inventions he claimed as his own and applied for patents.

 

[Silent Bob]

This play from nearly 60years ago is relevant to this thread - they tell us exactly how it all works!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYAke_z3RVU

 

[dreamtime]

None of the analyses of the data sets just mentioned yielded results suggestive of a significant difference between the children of exposed and of controls. The average combined gonadal doses of the exposed parents, however, approximated what on the basis of experiments with mice have been extrapolated to be the gametic doubling dose of acute radiation for humans. As these analyses unfolded, we began to sense a possible discrepancy between these findings on the children of survivors and the expectations based on projections from the mouse paradigm which had dominated the risk assessments of various national and international committees. There might be a message in the consistent lack of any notable difference between the cohorts under study.​

​

Source: Orientation - The Children of Atomic Bomb Survivors - NCBI Bookshelf​

So it seems they are saying there has been no evidence at all for radiation poisoning in the Japanese population.

 

[Udjat]

I am completely new to this thread and was intrigued by the title.
What a question!
My answer to this is the city of Mohenjo Daro, Pakistan, and Rajasthan, India. There are ancient writings from these civilizations that inhabited these places that tell of tales of what sounds just like nuclear destruction.

If someone has already mentioned this I apologize, I just couldn't read 11 pages of comments.

 

[InchoateTulpa]

None of the analyses of the data sets just mentioned yielded results suggestive of a significant difference between the children of exposed and of controls. The average combined gonadal doses of the exposed parents, however, approximated what on the basis of experiments with mice have been extrapolated to be the gametic doubling dose of acute radiation for humans. As these analyses unfolded, we began to sense a possible discrepancy between these findings on the children of survivors and the expectations based on projections from the mouse paradigm which had dominated the risk assessments of various national and international committees. There might be a message in the consistent lack of any notable difference between the cohorts under study.​

​

Source: Orientation - The Children of Atomic Bomb Survivors - NCBI Bookshelf​

So it seems they are saying there has been no evidence at all for radiation poisoning in the Japanese population.

Galen Winsor was a nuclear scientist who discussed how the dangers of radiation were greatly exaggerated. To prove his point, he ate (yes ingested) uranium many times in front of an audience with no ill effects. Here is a video of him doing so:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROAO1saHEvs


All of his videos are worth a watch. He explains why the extremely restrictive controls were implemented on enriched uranium and plutonium. Suffice it to say it has nothing to do with safety. Spent radioactive fuel may be an entirely different story though.

 

[intothevoid]

What Does a Nuclear Bomb Explosion Feel Like?​

​

View: https://youtu.be/CLOmxg4249w​

​

British soldiers describing the effects of close-range nuclear weapons tests they were subjected to in the 1950s. Apparently they closed and covered their eyes but could see the bones and blood vessels in their hands and bodies, like X-ray images.

 

[Nonat]

Galen Winsor was a nuclear scientist who discussed how the dangers of radiation were greatly exaggerated. To prove his point, he ate (yes ingested) uranium many times in front of an audience with no ill effects. Here is a video of him doing so:

This assumes that uranium is a real thing, and it also assumes that this is actually what he ingested.
It's a nice gesture countering the primary mainstream narrative, but it doesn't actually prove anything, as both of these are unverifyable claims for us, you still have to take things by faith.

British soldiers describing the effects of close-range nuclear weapons tests they were subjected to in the 1950s. Apparently they closed and covered their eyes but could see the bones and blood vessels in their hands and bodies, like X-ray images.

The same is true for this, and these claims go very much along with the fear-mongering control tactic, which makes them even more suspicious in my opinion.

 

[InchoateTulpa]

This assumes that uranium is a real thing, and it also assumes that this is actually what he ingested.
It's a nice gesture countering the primary mainstream narrative, but it doesn't actually prove anything, as both of these are unverifyable claims for us, you still have to take things by faith.



The same is true for this, and these claims go very much along with the fear-mongering control tactic, which makes them even more suspicious in my opinion.

I worked in the nuclear industry. I can assure you nuclear reactors are a thing, ergo uranium is a thing. I don't believe nuclear weapons are real though.

 

[Referent]

I worked in the nuclear industry. I can assure you nuclear reactors are a thing, ergo uranium is a thing. I don't believe nuclear weapons are real though.

Thank you for the assurance, InchoateTulpa.

• While the "nuclear power generation" question is tangential to the thread topic, it may be related enough to explore slightly further.
  • Personally, I agree that even if nuclear power generation exists, that does not imply that nuclear weapons also exist.
  • However, if nuclear plants were to not exist, that would perhaps be "even more" evidence against the case of nuclear weapons' existence, so I'll take the chance to ask below.

Questions for InchoateTulpa

• How can you be sure that nuclear reactors exist more or less as popularly described?
  • If steam was created, how do you know the reactor was not receiving electrical energy to create steam?
    • Were you able to personally sufficiently inspect the (entire?) environment of the reactor, to know it was doing what it was purported to be doing (or, instead, review plans, etc.)?
      • My (severely limited) understanding is that there's possibly siloing of responsibilities and great regulation for such facilities, which leads to the relevance of the question (just like how other mostly unrelated fields are also more top-down and compartmentalized than they may appear at first blush).
• If there are no nuclear weapons, and there is nuclear power generation, then: in your mind, what might be the "alternative, negative use" of nuclear "technology"?
  • That is to say, since many technologies are often described as being "double-edged" or suitable for both fairly clear-cut positive/constructive and negative/destructive use cases (even if the destruction eventually leads to more creation...). Does nuclear tech exhibit such a duality (maybe not)?
    • Do you have a perspective on this? I've often wondered what the "negative" side of nuclear would be, if nuclear weapons were to be non-existent and if the generation technology were to be actually safe (but scare-mongered to prevent its proliferation).

Not to grill you; I'm just genuinely curious about both the nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons topics, and these kinds of details still linger for me when the topic comes up. So, if you have got thoughts or insights, they would be most welcome! Thanks a ton in advance.

 

[Nonat]

I worked in the nuclear industry. I can assure you nuclear reactors are a thing, ergo uranium is a thing. I don't believe nuclear weapons are real though.

You might believe in both, but I can't simply take things by faith, especially not things tied to one of the big fear mongering agendas out there.
But I'm curious as well what you would answer @Referent questions.

I once read the 'nuclear plants' are just for getting rid of whatever remainder of electricity that isn't consumed, and think that's quite plausible. That would also mean what they tell us about such 'plants' is actually a complete inversion of the truth, which they particularly like.

 

[intothevoid]

The same is true for this, and these claims go very much along with the fear-mongering control tactic, which makes them even more suspicious in my opinion.

Maybe. I wasn't suggesting the eye witness accounts prove or disprove the existence of nukes. But thought it was worth posting here.

 

[InchoateTulpa]

You might believe in both, but I can't simply take things by faith, especially not things tied to one of the big fear mongering agendas out there.
But I'm curious as well what you would answer @Referent questions.

I once read the 'nuclear plants' are just for getting rid of whatever remainder of electricity that isn't consumed, and think that's quite plausible. That would also mean what they tell us about such 'plants' is actually a complete inversion of the truth, which they particularly like.

I understand questioning the nuclear paradigm though for myself nuclear power is not about believing since, as I mentioned, I worked with the technology personally. The way you think of nuclear power, I feel

Thank you for the assurance, InchoateTulpa.

• While the "nuclear power generation" question is tangential to the thread topic, it may be related enough to explore slightly further.
  • Personally, I agree that even if nuclear power generation exists, that does not imply that nuclear weapons also exist.
  • However, if nuclear plants were to not exist, that would perhaps be "even more" evidence against the case of nuclear weapons' existence, so I'll take the chance to ask below.

Questions for InchoateTulpa

• How can you be sure that nuclear reactors exist more or less as popularly described?
  • If steam was created, how do you know the reactor was not receiving electrical energy to create steam?
    • Were you able to personally sufficiently inspect the (entire?) environment of the reactor, to know it was doing what it was purported to be doing (or, instead, review plans, etc.)?
      • My (severely limited) understanding is that there's possibly siloing of responsibilities and great regulation for such facilities, which leads to the relevance of the question (just like how other mostly unrelated fields are also more top-down and compartmentalized than they may appear at first blush).
• If there are no nuclear weapons, and there is nuclear power generation, then: in your mind, what might be the "alternative, negative use" of nuclear "technology"?
  • That is to say, since many technologies are often described as being "double-edged" or suitable for both fairly clear-cut positive/constructive and negative/destructive use cases (even if the destruction eventually leads to more creation...). Does nuclear tech exhibit such a duality (maybe not)?
    • Do you have a perspective on this? I've often wondered what the "negative" side of nuclear would be, if nuclear weapons were to be non-existent and if the generation technology were to be actually safe (but scare-mongered to prevent its proliferation).

Not to grill you; I'm just genuinely curious about both the nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons topics, and these kinds of details still linger for me when the topic comes up. So, if you have got thoughts or insights, they would be most welcome! Thanks a ton in advance.

the same way about satellite technology. I've never personally seen one. I have seen balloons that crashed with communication equipment attached (satellites?).

I think people's fear of nucle

You might believe in both, but I can't simply take things by faith, especially not things tied to one of the big fear mongering agendas out there.
But I'm curious as well what you would answer @Referent questions.

I once read the 'nuclear plants' are just for getting rid of whatever remainder of electricity that isn't consumed, and think that's quite plausible. That would also mean what they tell us about such 'plants' is actually a complete inversion of the truth, which they particularly like.

You might believe in both, but I can't simply take things by faith, especially not things tied to one of the big fear mongering agendas out there.
But I'm curious as well what you would answer @Referent questions.

I once read the 'nuclear plants' are just for getting rid of whatever remainder of electricity that isn't consumed, and think that's quite plausible. That would also mean what they tell us about such 'plants' is actually a complete inversion of the truth, which they particularly like.

I understand questioning the nuclear paradigm though for myself nuclear power is not about believing since, as I mentioned, I worked with the technology personally. The way you question nuclear power is the same way I question satellite technology. I've never personally seen one though I have seen crashed balloons with communication equipment attached to them (are these satellites?).

Though I'd guess people are more afraid of nuclear weapons than nuclear waste/contamination, the video I posted is important because it shows nuclear propaganda (waste or weapon) is just more fear mongering.

Thank you for the assurance, InchoateTulpa.

• While the "nuclear power generation" question is tangential to the thread topic, it may be related enough to explore slightly further.
  • Personally, I agree that even if nuclear power generation exists, that does not imply that nuclear weapons also exist.
  • However, if nuclear plants were to not exist, that would perhaps be "even more" evidence against the case of nuclear weapons' existence, so I'll take the chance to ask below.

Questions for InchoateTulpa

• How can you be sure that nuclear reactors exist more or less as popularly described?
  • If steam was created, how do you know the reactor was not receiving electrical energy to create steam?
    • Were you able to personally sufficiently inspect the (entire?) environment of the reactor, to know it was doing what it was purported to be doing (or, instead, review plans, etc.)?
      • My (severely limited) understanding is that there's possibly siloing of responsibilities and great regulation for such facilities, which leads to the relevance of the question (just like how other mostly unrelated fields are also more top-down and compartmentalized than they may appear at first blush).
• If there are no nuclear weapons, and there is nuclear power generation, then: in your mind, what might be the "alternative, negative use" of nuclear "technology"?
  • That is to say, since many technologies are often described as being "double-edged" or suitable for both fairly clear-cut positive/constructive and negative/destructive use cases (even if the destruction eventually leads to more creation...). Does nuclear tech exhibit such a duality (maybe not)?
    • Do you have a perspective on this? I've often wondered what the "negative" side of nuclear would be, if nuclear weapons were to be non-existent and if the generation technology were to be actually safe (but scare-mongered to prevent its proliferation).

Not to grill you; I'm just genuinely curious about both the nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons topics, and these kinds of details still linger for me when the topic comes up. So, if you have got thoughts or insights, they would be most welcome! Thanks a ton in advance.

Nuclear submarines can stay submerged for months at a time. In fact the only reason they need to surface is to resupply food for the crew. If not for that they could literally stay submerged for the life of the reactor (barring unforseen technical issues). Nuclear power is the only technology I'm aware of that can supply energy for that long a time period. Obviously nuclear submarines are not tied to a grid/alternative power source.

Did I inspect the inside of a functioning reactor? No though suffice it to say I was in the industry long enough to see the entire reactor life cycle - from design to decommisioning - to know the technology is real.

I understand your skepticism since I feel the same way about the ISS and NASA - that is I think most of it is bullshit/misdirection.

 

[Nonat]

Nuclear submarines can stay submerged for months at a time. In fact the only reason they need to surface is to resupply food for the crew.

Well that's just unverifiable hearsay for us, and there is an agenda to paint them as more powerful than they are in reality. But assuming this were actually true, it still wouldn't follow that this is achieved through 'nuclear power'.

It also assumes that atoms (literally 'something that can not be parted') even exists.
And the alleged source of 'nuclear power' is achieved through 'parting' 'that which can not be parted' and now you suddenly got lots of energy thrown your way.
I don't believe in this narrative, never observed anything of it and they are known liars and deceivers literally indoctrinating small children. Why would I take any of their 'explanations' by faith? Autohoax it is.

Did I inspect the inside of a functioning reactor? No

What parts of the narrative have you actually seen with your own eyes (not on video) if I may ask?

I understand your skepticism since I feel the same way about the ISS and NASA - that is I think most of it is bullshit/misdirection.

Yes, there is nothing they are honest about, but the amount of deception might vary per topic. Though for me right now, ISS is as real as a 'nuclear reactor'. But feel free to disagree.

 

[InchoateTulpa]

Well that's just unverifiable hearsay for us, and there is an agenda to paint them as more powerful than they are in reality. But assuming this were actually true, it still wouldn't follow that this is achieved through 'nuclear power'.

It also assumes that atoms (literally 'something that can not be parted') even exists.
And the alleged source of 'nuclear power' is achieved through 'parting' 'that which can not be parted' and now you suddenly got lots of energy thrown your way.
I don't believe in this narrative, never observed anything of it and they are known liars and deceivers literally indoctrinating small children. Why would I take any of their 'explanations' by faith? Autohoax it is.



What parts of the narrative have you actually seen with your own eyes (not on video) if I may ask?


Yes, there is nothing they are honest about, but the amount of deception might vary per topic. Though for me right now, ISS is as real as a 'nuclear reactor'. But feel free to disagree.

An internet stranger isn't going to convince you nuclear power is real so continuing to discuss it is pointless. With all of the lies we've been told I don't blame you for questioning it. I've personally come to believe nuclear weapons are fake so from my perspective it's reasonable for you to suspect controlled nuclear fission is also being faked.

One last point in favor of nuclear power being real vs nuclear bombs is the fact that even a physicist can be convinced via maths that a rapid uncontrolled atomic chain reaction is achievable. Hence they go about their business believing they're designing real nuclear weapons. Einstein "proved" space time using maths. What most don't realize is there were dozens if not hundreds of physicists that protested his theories because they believed he had moved from physics to metaphysics, i.e. the world where experiments can prove or disprove a hypothesis to the world of pure math where you have to take things on faith.

The detonations shown in the 1950s and 60s are so laughably fake it's obvious we've had the wool pulled over our eyes. They even admitted to a trial run before trinity using high explosives to simulate a nuclear explosion replete with radioactive waste sprinkled on top. Huh? Lol.

Juxtapose that with the folks who have been in a submarine for three months at a time that must be powered by something... If not nuclear power then what? It's one thing to stand outside an industry and think all the players are faking it - it's another to spend a career seeing all aspects of it. All that said I suppose it might be some other hidden technology though I very much doubt that.

Personally when I get too cynical I fall back on Descartes' bootstrap - "cognito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). Ironically since practicing Buddhism that gets replaced by "thoughts without a thinker" lol.

 

[MerLynn]

Has anyone else heard the WW11 conspiracy theory that....
The 2 Bombs dropped on Japan were built in Germany?
And the real reason Truman refused the Japanese delegation to surrender was, he needed time to study and test these 2 bombs in an active war scenario.

Why Does it take a Power Station to make enough 'electricity' to "enrich" or as I would say it HYPER-CHARGE a Heavy Metal like Uranium?
And what does DC have to do with changing the Atomic Structure to "become Heavier"

For more on understanding enrichment or Hyper-Charging see... Walter Russell's Periodic Chart of The Elements

 

[GrnScrn]

but that there is no man-made trigger for such an explosion. Planets/stars have to be aligned properly and only then can a blast occur in a given environment.

went so far and did calculations for future points in time where blasts could/would occur and low and behold, nuclear testing was done at the dates predicted.
Bruce Cathie.

Ah thank the gods some one knows of this guy. I thought he and his stuff was scrubbed. Old links didn't work... and then a crash and I began thinking I had imagined the whole thing.

33 parrallel plays a part if memory serves ... my olde roomies grand dad drew that line of DMZ he always Said for a reason he couldn't fully share but gave me clues and didn't stop me from guessing ... he was of the Bruce line and very nuts and well connected. Worked for verisign and often shut down whole countries bank apparatus when dictated to punish them from state department ...

Again. Thank heavens you posted this and the edited update with his name...your a wonderful savior I have racked my brain and the interwebs trying to find this stuff about him Bruce Cathie.

I'm almost certain the strange kiwi also used something about his calculations to make synthetic reef that forma perfect Rip curl for surf...

My little kiwi brother though his stuff was utternonsense, but then again he's totally indoctrinated and clueless to what he is following like so many potentials ... lol

again thank you thank thank you!

 

[GrnScrn]

Maybe a Papp noble gas pulsed plasma engine. The navy was interacting with him. It's scalable and could be what's powering subs destroyers and carriers...

An internet stranger isn't going to convince you nuclear power is real so continuing to discuss it is pointless. With all of the lies we've been told I don't blame you for questioning it. I've personally come to believe nuclear weapons are fake so from my perspective it's reasonable for you to suspect controlled nuclear fission is also being faked.

One last point in favor of nuclear power being real vs nuclear bombs is the fact that even a physicist can be convinced via maths that a rapid uncontrolled atomic chain reaction is achievable. Hence they go about their business believing they're designing real nuclear weapons. Einstein "proved" space time using maths. What most don't realize is there were dozens if not hundreds of physicists that protested his theories because they believed he had moved from physics to metaphysics, i.e. the world where experiments can prove or disprove a hypothesis to the world of pure math where you have to take things on faith.

The detonations shown in the 1950s and 60s are so laughably fake it's obvious we've had the wool pulled over our eyes. They even admitted to a trial run before trinity using high explosives to simulate a nuclear explosion replete with radioactive waste sprinkled on top. Huh? Lol.

Juxtapose that with the folks who have been in a submarine for three months at a time that must be powered by something... If not nuclear power then what? It's one thing to stand outside an industry and think all the players are faking it - it's another to spend a career seeing all aspects of it. All that said I suppose it might be some other hidden technology though I very much doubt that.

Personally when I get too cynical I fall back on Descartes' bootstrap - "cognito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). Ironically since practicing Buddhism that gets replaced by "thoughts without a thinker" lol.