7 Comments

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fire bombed like Tokyo (compare the photos). They couldn't get the A bomb to work so the USA, USSR and UK formed the Nuclear Fear Club mainly for their own populations control. Others were allowed to join later. All videos and films of A bomb explosions are easily shown as fake. No nuclear weapon no matter how small has ever been used since WW2 although every other horrendous weapons have been used. Hiroshima and Nagasaki show no signs of residue radioactivity. A ludicrous photo shows Oppenheimer and various military personnel standing at ground zero after the first test in normal clothes. Why did they build a huge pile of high explosive at the test site to simulate a 'nuclear explosion'?

Expand full comment
author

It is all part of the propaganda war. I doubt very much they were standing at ground zero, more likely a press op stand in site. Faces would need to be seen and they also would be going to great pains not to freak people out. Nuclear bombs do exist. You just have to look at the official, and non official, earthquakes/tests in the Aleutian Island chain. USGS is a very good resource. Propaganda was used by both sides (west/Soviet aligned countries) in attempts to outwit and demoralise the enemy.

Expand full comment
author

This article was first and foremost focusing on the use of RDDs, rather than nuclear bombs.

I will say however, that I'm not entirely convinced by the claim that nuclear bombs don't exist. The book most people seem to reference is 'Death Object' by Akio Nakatani. I've had a look at it, and didn't find it particularly convincing – in fact, I suspect it probably belongs to the category of forged material that appears to be produced in great quantity by Directorate Six.

But I'm a little unclear on what you saying because you say here "no nuclear weapon no matter how small has ever been used since WW2" – does that mean they were used? Or not?If they weren't used, what did Midori Naka die of, according to you?

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki show no signs of residue radioactivity." – as of when? In any case, this isn't all that surprising given half life. Many of the radioactive isotopes released during the explosion have short ones, meaning they decay relatively quickly.

As to Oppenheimer and co, I don't know what photo you are referring to, but it is also well established that in those days, safety measures were not taken as seriously as they are today. Safety measures started being put in place after the deaths of Harry K. Daghlian and Louis Slotin, both Manhattan Project scientists.

"Why did they build a huge pile of high explosive at the test site to simulate a 'nuclear explosion'" – I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Expand full comment

I appreciate your continued efforts in highlighting poisons like various forms of arsenic or zinc cadmium sulphide and so on, especially because these are insidious and little known!

This article did begin with the nuclear weapons narrative, leading into radiological issues, and this narrative does matter. It also provides context for talking about radiological issues or radioactivity, and if the nuclear story is not what it appears, that provides context for other stories. That does not mean people don't get sick - and maybe being radioactive is not the issue - it's more chemical poisoning, period. Extreme heat or certain chemicals can cause burns or cancer (no radioactivity necessary).

I agree that the wording "no nuclear weapon no matter how small has ever been used since WW2" is a bit unclear, because why not say they've never been used. The nuke weapons is a topic one can explore, though what I think is beneficial to highlight as an introduction is a recent conversion with a lady ("Mei") who's mother and grandmother survived Nagasaki.

Her family was told a certain narrative, they were told about a new weapon being used, but what they actually saw and experienced did not match the narrative. Yes there was damage, but no nuclear bomb was needed or the effects you were supposed to see specific to that were not apparent.

Her grandmother had burns, which had a stigma about being contaminated and things like being unable to have children. See how that narrative can deter people from something like having children?

These narratives create fear, and justify military expenditures and enrollment and the control factors go on and on.

Anyways, Mei also noted how people in Japan were very sick around that time, before the bombs, which could be due to environmental factors (ex. factory pollution) and/or malnutrition. Times were tough being in the war as well.

I find the question "what did Midori Naka die of, according to you?" a little alarming, because that's like the covid people (or whoever) saying "well what was I sick with", or "what did so and so die of". That could be many things - environmental poisons, malnutrition, various lifestyle - the point is that it's something else, and we can look at what something else is.

(If someone said you killed your neighbour and you said no it couldn't have been me for various reasons; then someone can say well okay but who did it, and you're guilty because you don't have who did it).

The first 15 minutes of the conversation with Mei is great, and the first 50 minutes of that conversation is free. I hope many will listen! Cheers :)

https://www.crrow777radio.com/507-the-radioactive-wastelands-that-never-were-free/

Expand full comment
author

Thanks Timothy, appreciate the comment.

1.) Zinc cadmium sulphide – I suspect the conclusions some have come to here aren't correct, and that the use of said substance were a counter measure meaning in turn that the deleterious effects being attributed to it are more likely to be the result of exposure to other substances, which I suspect are some of those discussed in this article. This will be discussed in more detail in the next article.

2.) Undoubtedly, people were sick in Japan before the bomb. I don't think that disproves or proves anything.

3.) 'Fear' can justify all kinds of things, however I think it is pretty clear – to me at least – that there's a lot more than 'fear' doing the rounds. Thus, the claim that it's all part of some big scheme to justify more military expenditure doesn't quite wash.

4.) Midori Naka – I was asking Doug for his explanation. He claimed napalm was used. As far as I am aware, there are no chemicals used in the preparation of napalm that can cause, for instance, hair loss.

Thank you for the link to Mei's interview, I will have a listen to it. In any case, as I pointed out above – even if the 'alternative narrative' is correct, I don't believe it changes anything else that's been said in this article.

Expand full comment

The use of terror symbols in world-shaping is masked by their resulting experience of those who share their fruits as a dramatically boosted identity.

https://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/episodeguide.html

The linked video interview segments document in methodically understated terms, the bending & buying of 'the science' by which to assert and define risks, to hype media fear, to attract support & funding, for regulatory capture to arbitrary modelling, running in funded & framed 'research' that runs a control mindset on emotional energy set in managed imagery.

Expand full comment