The Nuke Hoax - How Far Does It Go?

Global War deceptions & mass manipulation, fear-mongering terror schemes and propaganda in the Age of the Bomb

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:42 pm

Fair points, certainly. Radiation seems like a real problem. (It certainly seems cancer is an ongoing issue with human beings that doesn't go away, too.)

The problem for me is that there doesn't seem to be any information that the disinformation has actually scrambled. It's just fluff as of yet. Stories.

Coupled with the extreme lengths of fakery around the weapon (I insist I haven't seen realistic depictions of the weapon in operation yet), we are left - unfortunately - with the same problem as we have regarding 9/11 and 7/7 and any other recent sensation.

What's fake reporting is bad reporting. What's extensively, exhaustively fake reporting is a fabrication. And if we aren't offered z hint of truth on the matter, just to keep the scientifically minded curious, my temptation is to conclude that I am being lied to about a boogieman.

Let's not conclude the nuke exists or does not exist since we simply do not have enough information to confirm either way. Still, there should now be ample room to doubt:

Hiroshima was a city of military importance - exaggerated or not - and unlike New York, London, etc. they are not going to let just anybody walk in without special permission. I would compare Hiroshima to a sort of sub-Pentagon, where troops were literally gathered to prepare for invasions into China, Russia and Korea - providing those stories are true and I think each of those countries will insist angrily that they are.

Our Pentagon was not "attacked" unless by people savvy enough to take over the news networks as they hid real damage behind every story to come out of the alleged attack since 9/11; I don't care what kind of magic airplane-missile-bomb may or may not be being covered up. A coup of imagination is a coup - not an outside attack. Likewise, I don't feel there is enough evidence that Hiroshima itself was physically attacked. Perhaps blown up. By Japanese. But attacked freely without combatant airplanes in opposition by American and English forces?

The prefecture was cut off by military force, along with half the country, the city was selected for demolition projects that very year, and nobody claims to have seen any fighters - friendly or enemy. Afterwards, all information was censored by the alleged occupying force. Somehow, I feel we are being told to imagine horrors that did not take place.

Though the photographers on such a day might be shy about showing truly disgusting live body decomposition, we nevertheless have no evidence of it. Only hyper dramatic stories told by the sorts of people we hear similar fare from in the 9/11 mythmaking. I want to stress my questions about what 'A-bomb radiation' is and why nothing can be said about it, also why it is specifically treated as 'A-bomb radiation' rather than a specific series of determinable waves and consequences. We know what X-Rays do. There is no mention of them. We know perfectly well about electric torture, waterboarding, Nazi experimentations, human drug testing, early NASA flights shooting stray people into outer space and a host of other inhumane crimes of government and business. Imposed cancer is not the worst humans have done to one another, even if it is horrible. If nuclear arms are a deterrent, then facts about them must actually deter countries. My guess is that the nuclear threat is a deliberately unclear threat so that our imaginations are turned against us - the best deterrent there is.

Probably, it doesn't exist or there would be real footage of it somewhere. Like unicorns.

The bazooka was eventually revealed. Nukes have been fake-revealed for decades.
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby brianv on Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:29 pm

I've been wondering....the Chernobyl Disaster!?

Kinda looks familiar doesn't it?


Could it have been a "Russian 9/11"? Would a camera work for instance? Would the radiation fry the on-board electronics on a helicopter?

Any opinions?

Image ... mage.shtml
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 am

fbenario 4 Mar 4 2010, 01:15 AM wrote: Fred, I don't believe we have any credible evidence at all that anyone's organs began falling off.

Well, the museum has melted mannequins standing in play-rubble against a horrifying red sky stage background. So maybe it actually happened!

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

It is really an honor to discuss these matters with someone as intelligent and well-reasoned and as good a writer as Fred is. I am overjoyed to read opposition to my arguments that is not composed of immature whining and name-calling. Not that I would expect that from Fred, but just stressing that it is a privilege to have certain people on this board and it keeps me balanced because through their writing, I am able to consider that I am wrong. If Fred weren't such a damn good writer making excellent points, I'd probably be mistakenly more sure of myself.

..the Chernobyl Disaster!?

When I've asked ESA scientists about radiation, I receive very cartoonish, unclear answers. Particularly in regards to the unstable elements meant to power these super-devices like nuclear power plants and A-Bombs. Try asking a scientist, once. See if you get anything out of them more than the explanation we are given in third grade. I may have to go and try to isolate some of these nanoscopic bastards myself and figure this out.

Anyway, assuming nuclear radiation is a real power source, nuclear waste is a real problem, and Chernobyl was a real power plant ... (Churn the bull?) - all safe assumptions so far - what might be the reason for faking a disaster that keeps everyone away for fear of glowing green?

Based on the "wind" in that picture, maybe they had something against Finland? The big mustard stain looks like a "Hey Europe! Keep away from Moscow, that's our territory! Especially you Fins and Germanic folk! We've had trouble from the Germans before ..." Maybe something going on in Poland?

Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby fred on Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:46 pm

I'm not sure what to think of your buddy at CERN. Maybe he's not good at explaining things? Does he actually think the project he's working on is a hoax?

The idea that the US would try to convince Japan (and the world) that it had a secret weapon that it did not actually possess is not crazy. I suppose that with enough inside help and planted evidence it would be possible to get the Japanese commanders to buy a phony story about a secret doomsday weapon.

In a former life a couple of my colleagues were nuclear engineers, and I know somebody who spent about a decade working on the SDI - Star Wars program. In casual conversations these folks assert that nuclear power works and the technology behind directed energy weapons actually works. Of course, that doesn't prove anything but they at least seem more credible than the Woodstock "my cousin's uncle's homeroom teacher was killed in the WTC" people.

I know some anti-nuke people who believe that the environmental waste-disposal problems caused by nuclear power plants are real. There seems to be a fairly large nuclear industry that really does dig up heavy metals and seems to be able to generate electricity with it. I don't think that the nuke plants are actually coal plants, and I suspect it would be rather easy to see the coal coming into the plants if they were. OTOH I don't have any direct experience working in nuclear plants or on directed energy weapons myself.

In contrast, if you have any plain-spoken military or intelligence friends over in Afghanistan or Iraq and you ask them about Al Qaida you'll probably get the answer that it's a bunch of bullshit or that the CIA built all the supposed terrorist training camps, etc. My own experience talking to people who ought to have direct knowledge of some of the "official 9/11 story" is that they are pretty sure that the parts of the official story that relate to their jobs are false.

The Soviets were always famous for having state-run media and fake news stories, KGB deception operations, etc. I suppose Chernobyl could have been some deliberate sabotage or other kind of fake story to discredit some group of leaders and create an advantage for somebody else. Certainly it was a national disgrace that made the Soviet bureaucracy look incompetent and highlighted the crumbling infrastructure. Maybe it was their "Hurricane Katrina" designed to make it easier to change policies.

It's hard to know if the crumbling infrastructure failed all by itself or if it had a lot of "help". Certainly the CIA and Mi6 spent a lot of effort trying to make sure that the Soviet system failed, and I am sure that there were plenty of Russians who tried to speed up the collapse of the Soviet system as well.

Supposedly every day was 9/11 over in the old Soviet Union in the sense that their media broadcast fake stories all the time. Presumably the 9/11 planners in the West were saying, hey, that's a great idea, why don't we do that too?

It's naive to think that the standard media and historic accounts of major events are completely accurate when we have so many recent examples of deliberate lies and propaganda.
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:43 pm

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:33 pm

I'm not sure what to think of your buddy at CERN. Maybe he's not good at explaining things? Does he actually think the project he's working on is a hoax?

The most I got out of him was that he was pretty sure science was involved and he could tell what was happening by watching the computer screen. I can't imagine how a number of people whose expertise is atomic science could be misled by a computer program. And yet .... and yet ... when my curiosity about something is met with a look of apprehension rather than the curiosity and excitement I am familiar with, I get a bit confused. (Did I ask the question wrong? Is my deodorant ineffective?)

Some people just cannot find the time to answer questions about their work that people at their job probably don't even ask each other.

I can't help contemplating on the probably billion or so people on the planet who have heard of 9/11 and understand that what happened is what the USA and UK media said happened rather than a block of important buildings getting demolished in Copperfield style to avoid paperwork. Just as a hypothetical example. And the pilots and flight experts I have talked to who on the one hand state facts about flights that would make 9/11 seem like the joke it is, but on the other hand cannot reconcile the impossibility of what they were told ...

In this strange room, I find myself nearly alone with a haunting possibility. Our curiosity is greater than the knowledge of the experts. It isn't that science is a hoax, but that a group of scientists recognized as experts may not actually be the most qualified to be called such or field questions about what they are doing ... if they even know. I have encountered too many people on the 9/11 journey who endorse, by nothing less graceful than sheer laziness, an event that their own scrutiny would reject outright if it weren't for the peer pressure.

This is what concerns me. Nuclear waste is a big concern - and I can barely imagine the level of hoaxing it would take to convince people if it was all fake. Yet, why is it a concern?

I imagine the thousands of people marching to honor "the victims of 9/11" they never knew, religious throngs ... it all seems so human but we don't want to believe we are like them -- that maybe we are defending something because of a mass hypnotic curiosity with power - Nuclear weapons, directed energy weapons, etc.

I have military in the family too, possibly including access to area 51 (though please let us NOT go into that - I am just trying to make a point), and all they keep promising me is that the government has things we couldn't even dream of.

Well, I am dreaming, and asking questions. And if we have something called the nuclear bomb, I've imagined it more realistically than anyone with the weapon is apparently prepared to represent it - even by what they call scientific evidence. And I guess I am just finding that to be a really weird experience.
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby fbenario on Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:28 am

From Fred:

fred 4 Mar 4 2010, 02:46 PM wrote:

The idea that the US would try to convince Japan (and the world) that it had a secret weapon that it did not actually possess is not crazy. I suppose that with enough inside help and planted evidence it would be possible to get the Japanese commanders to buy a phony story about a secret doomsday weapon.

Japan offered to surrender in early 1945. The US refused, enjoying their easy triumphs in the Pacific too much to stop the war. Truman then decided to bomb/attack Hiroshima (with some form of weapon) in order to scare the Soviets into stopping their potential advance into Japan/Korea/Northern China. Since life under Stalin was known to be horrendous, and life in America fairly benign, it isn't hard for me to think Japan decided voluntarily to go along with the fake-nuke attack in order to ensure they were occupied by America, not the Soviets. Given their economic success since WWII, compared to Russia's, it looks as if they made a rational decision.

I certainly would choose to lie about an attack on me if it meant I wouldn't have to deal with the privations of totalitarianism.

As for Chernobyl, it isn't hard to see it as a CIA psyop, given that it made the world understand more clearly that the Soviet system was entirely decrepit. Apparently Chernobyl is the Russian word for 'wormwood', which brings in all sorts of Biblical prophecy nonsense.

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter."
Revelation 8:10-11

The book of Revelation describes cataclysmic events that are to happen in the endtime. Part of these events are signaled by the blowing of seven trumpets by seven angels. At the sounding of the third trumpet in chapter 8, a great star called Wormwood was cast into the earth.

The world's worst ever nuclear meltdown occurred in 1986 at Chernobyl in Ukraine, at that time one of the states of the Soviet Union. Incredibly, Chernobyl is the Russian word for wormwood! It appears that the Chernobyl catastrophe was the fulfillment of the sounding of the third trumpet of Revelation 8!
The prophecy of the third trumpet emphasizes that the star called Wormwood made the waters bitter. As the nuclear cloud produced by Chernobyl drifted over the Soviet Union and over Europe, and Extraordinary amount of rain fell. The rain brought the radiation from the nuclear cloud onto the soil, the animals, the crops, the trees, and into the rivers. The greater the rainfall, the greater was the amount of radioactivity. These heavy rains greatly increased the magnitude of this horrible disaster. Much of Europe was affected. When the prophecy said that many men died because of the waters, it explicitly described the effect of Chernobyl. ... rmwood.htm

[admin: sorry, fbenario, I edited your post to make the quotes work. remember to open a quote, it's QUOTE and to close, it's /QUOTE. sorry to intrude. -hp]
Posts: 2231
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby Piper on Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:53 am

We've all been shown images of the "atomic shadows" cast by certain objects due to the effects of the alleged atomic blasts. Here is one example:


(Why is the "shadow" of a lighter color in the above image?)

Anyway, the following is purported to be a photo of the "atomic shade" cast by a leaf of the Japanese Fatsia plant:


Now other than looking like a badly photoshopped forgery, I find it hard to imagine enough burning or radiation energy hitting a leaf to create a permanent shadow behind it... and yet leaving the leaf itself apparently unharmed? :huh:
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Unread postby Heiwa on Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:34 am

fbenario 4 Mar 5 2010, 02:28 AM wrote:Japan offered to surrender in early 1945. The US refused, enjoying their easy triumphs in the Pacific too much to stop the war. Truman then decided to bomb/attack Hiroshima (with some form of weapon) in order to scare the Soviets into stopping their potential advance into Japan/Korea/Northern China. Since life under Stalin was known to be horrendous, and life in America fairly benign, it isn't hard for me to think Japan decided voluntarily to go along with the fake-nuke attack in order to ensure they were occupied by America, not the Soviets. Given their economic success since WWII, compared to Russia's, it looks as if they made a rational decision.

I certainly would choose to lie about an attack on me if it meant I wouldn't have to deal with the privations of totalitarianism.

Yokohama was destroyed more than Hiroshima in a low carpet/napalm bombing attack in May 1945 that lasted 45 minutes! Pictures of the Yokohama destruction from Motomachi to Yokohama station on to Kawasaki look like Hiroshima. So maybe Hiroshima was just one, big magnesium bomb causing a flash + a quick Yokohama style bombing? Same at Nagasaki, where destruction on ground was quite limited.
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

Unread postby simonshack on Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:30 pm

This post is by forum member Fbenario
who asked the admins to move it here if deemed of interest. I think it certainly is ...

(ADMINS: If you think there is any new information here that is helpful, please move the post to the 'real' Nuke Hoax thread. If you don't believe there is any new/helpful info, please delete it)

I saw this news item today, and intended to ignore it, as I do most perp crap 'news' about fake 'nuclear attacks'. Then I saw an interesting location mentioned, in the 3rd quoted section below:

The Bomb Chroniclers

As for the atomic cameramen, there aren’t that many left. “Quite a few have died from cancer,” George Yoshitake, 82, one of the survivors, said of his peers in an interview. “No doubt it was related to the testing.”

'No doubt' they died of cancer? Get real.

The cinematographers focused on nuclear test explosions in the Pacific and Nevada.

Electrified wire ringed their headquarters in the Hollywood Hills. The inconspicuous building, on Wonderland Avenue in Laurel Canyon, had a sound stage, screening rooms, processing labs, animation gear, film vaults and a staff of more than 250 producers, directors and cameramen -- all with top-secret clearances.

When originally made, the films served as vital sources of information for scientists investigating the nature of nuclear arms and their destructiveness. Some movies also served as tutorials for federal and Congressional leaders.

'Tutorials for Congressional leaders'? Of course that's how they were used.

The secret film unit, established in 1947 by the military, was known as the Lookout Mountain Laboratory. Surrounded by the lush greenery of Laurel Canyon, just minutes from the Sunset Strip, the lab drew on Hollywood talent and technology to pursue its clandestine ends.

“The neighbors were suspicious because the lights were on all night long,” Mr. Yoshitake recalled.

Film historians say the unit tested many technologies that Hollywood later embraced, including advanced lenses and cameras, films and projection techniques.
Hollywood stars appeared in some of the films. Reed Hadley, star of the 1950s television show “Racket Squad,” portrayed a pipe-smoking military observer who, in 1952, witnessed the world’s first hydrogen blast.
“You had to have the cameras running before the detonation,” Douglas Wood, 75, a cinematographer, told a reporter at the gathering. If not, he said, the blinding flash “would burn the film and jam the film gate.”
Mr. Kuran continues to work on the old movies, using high-tech methodologies to improve their clarity and restore faded images to their original glory.

“He fixes things pixel by pixel,” said Mr. Sugg of the World Security Institute. “He’s this fanatical quality guy.” ... r=1&ref=us

As soon as I saw the reference to Lookout Mountain Lab, on Laurel Canyon Road, it reminded me of the very lengthy research series I'd seen on Laurel Canyon, and the interaction there between great rock stars, Manson, the CIA - and far too many dead bodies. I found this:

Anyway ? two ambitious projects in the 1940s brought significant changes to Laurel Canyon. First, Laurel Canyon Boulevard was extended into the San Fernando Valley, providing access to the canyon from both the north and the south. The widened boulevard was now a winding thoroughfare, providing direct access to the Westside from the Valley. Traffic, needless to say, increased considerably, which probably worked out well for the planners of the other project, because it meant that the increased traffic brought about by that other project probably wasn’t noticed at all. And that’s good, you see, because the other project was a secret one, so if I tell you about it, you have to promise not to tell anyone else.

What would become known as Lookout Mountain Laboratory was originally envisioned as an air defense center. Built in 1941 and nestled in two-and-a-half secluded acres off what is now Wonderland Park Avenue, the installation was hidden from view and surrounded by an electrified fence. By 1947, the facility featured a fully operational movie studio. In fact, it is claimed that it was perhaps the world’s only completely self-contained movie studio. With 100,000 square feet of floor space, the covert studio included sound stages, screening rooms, film processing labs, editing facilities, an animation department, and seventeen climate-controlled film vaults. It also had underground parking, a helicopter pad and a bomb shelter.

Over its lifetime, the studio produced some 19,000 classified motion pictures ? more than all the Hollywood studios combined (which I guess makes Laurel Canyon the real ‘motion picture capital of the world’). Officially, the facility was run by the U.S. Air Force and did nothing more nefarious than process AEC footage of atomic and nuclear bomb tests. The studio, however, was clearly equipped to do far more than just process film. There are indications that Lookout Mountain Laboratory had an advanced research and development department that was on the cutting edge of new film technologies. Such technological advances as 3-D effects were apparently first developed at the Laurel Canyon site. And Hollywood luminaries like John Ford, Jimmy Stewart, Howard Hawks, Ronald Reagan, Bing Crosby, Walt Disney and Marilyn Monroe were given clearance to work at the facility on undisclosed projects. There is no indication that any of them ever spoke of their work at the clandestine studio.

The facility retained as many as 250 producers, directors, technicians, editors, animators, etc., both civilian and military, all with top security clearances ? and all reporting to work in a secluded corner of Laurel Canyon. Accounts vary as to when the facility ceased operations. Some claim it was in 1969, while others say the installation remained in operation longer. In any event, by all accounts the secret bunker had been up and running for more than twenty years before Laurel Canyon’s rebellious teen years, and it remained operational for the most turbulent of those years.

The existence of the facility remained unknown to the general public until the early 1990s, though it had long been rumored that the CIA operated a secret movie studio somewhere in or near Hollywood. Filmmaker Peter Kuran was the first to learn of its existence, through classified documents he obtained while researching his 1995 documentary, “Trinity and Beyond.” And yet even today, some 15 years after its public disclosure, one would have trouble finding even a single mention of this secret military/intelligence facility anywhere in the ‘conspiracy’ literature.

"There are indications that Lookout Mountain Laboratory had an advanced research and development department that was on the cutting edge of new film technologies." No kidding.

I highly recommend reading the entire Laurel Canyon research series, all 17 (so far) parts, if for no other reason than human interest and to learn of the birth of the California rock sound.
Posts: 6773
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Unread postby simonshack on Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:48 pm

I must recommend the reading of this...uh...explosive New York Times article that Fbenario submitted :


New York Times caption:
"ZERO HOUR - Milliseconds after this image, the vehicles beneath the fireball were obliterated."

But the film crews were fine, surely... I guess they just kept at safe distance?


"In all, the atomic moviemakers fashioned 6,500 secret films, according to federal officials."

Whaa-aaat ? :huh:

"The cameramen were allowed to simply witness, not photograph, their first hydrogen bomb explosions, which were roughly one thousand times more powerful than atomic blasts. The goal was to get them accustomed to the level of violence."

Oh - I see, yes... But then, we are told that out of those 6500 secret films, only a mere 100 have been released, because you see....:

"Nuclear specialists say the shape and size of a weapon -- especially a hydrogen bomb -- can reveal design secrets".

:lol: :lol: :lol: No kiddin. You better believe the specialists.

(watch from 12:50 onwards - you won't regret it !)
Posts: 6773
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Mr. Yoshitake recalled documenting what a fiery explosion did to pigs -- whose skin resembles that of humans. “Some were still squealing,” he said. “You could smell the meat burning. It made you sick. I thought, ‘Oh, how terrible. If they were humans they would have suffered terribly.’ ”


And would have tasted less delicious! We began development of nuclear BBQ grills immediately. "tested on pigs"?! What a joke.

The declassifications stopped in 2001. The arrival of the Bush administration, and an outbreak of atomic jitters after the terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon, combined to bring about the program’s demise.

hahaha ... O'Leary was leering too much at the propagandists. It was high time the government got a replacement "nuke" - wild, uncontrollable party-animal terrorist Arabs! And they want nuclear bombs!!! What a joke our 'disarmament' protests are.

Did you notice that really subtle product placement for the "nuke store" website?

"Don't forget to stop at our gift store on the way out of this article ..."

- ... tle/Detail
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:01 am

Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Two very different things. Let's examine a bit. This is tough work.

If there was ever an official-sounding moment that historically distinguished between people invested in making nuclear power and actually making nuclear power a viable energy source, it might be somewhere around Ernest Rutherford.

"The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine."


Apparently, infuriated by this comment by Rutherford, Leó Szilárd invented the first nuclear energy device out of invention's sake.

There is more to the inspiration, though, according to other stories ...

Scientists of the time were well aware that the slow natural radioactive decay of elements like radium continues for thousands of years, and that while the rate of energy release is negligible, the total amount released is huge. Wells used this as the basis for his story. In his fiction [Wells wrote:]
The problem which was already being mooted by such scientific men as Ramsay, Rutherford, and Soddy, in the very beginning of the twentieth century, the problem of inducing radio-activity in the heavier elements and so tapping the internal energy of atoms, was solved by a wonderful combination of induction, intuition, and luck by [fictionalized name] Holsten so soon as the year 1933.

In other words, the concept of nuclear weapons was first introduced to us as a fictional concept in a fantasy novel - as an extension of imaginative guesswork. This italic text is from science fiction writer H.G.Wells' The World Set Free which, as a fascinating summation of our dear globalists' imagination, is described on Wikipedia in this way:

The physicist Leó Szilárd read the book during 1932, conceived the idea of nuclear chain reaction during 1933, and filed for patents for it during 1934. Soddy's book Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt praises The World Set Free.

Virtually putting H.G.Wells' prediction into practice.

Wells further wrote:
Certainly it seems now that nothing could have been more obvious to the people of the earlier twentieth century than the rapidity with which war was becoming impossible. And as certainly they did not see it. They did not see it until the atomic bombs burst in their fumbling hands[...] All through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the amount of energy that men were able to command was continually increasing. Applied to warfare that meant that the power to inflict a blow, the power to destroy, was continually increasing[...]There was no increase whatever in the ability to escape[...]Destruction was becoming so facile that any little body of malcontents could use it[...]Before the last war began it was a matter of common knowledge that a man could carry about in a handbag an amount of latent energy sufficient to wreck half a city.

Wells viewed war as the inevitable result of the Modern State; the introduction of atomic energy in a world divided resulted in the collapse of society. The only possibilities remaining were "either the relapse of mankind to agricultural barbarism from which it had emerged so painfully or the acceptance of achieved science as the basis of a new social order." Wells's theme of world government is presented as a solution to the threat of nuclear weapons. It is possible that several years of nuclear terrorism could frighten world leaders so much that they are willing to consider a one world government, seeking "peace and safety", for example.
From the first they had to see the round globe as one problem; it was impossible any longer to deal with it piece by piece. They had to secure it universally from any fresh outbreak of atomic destruction, and they had to ensure a permanent and universal pacification.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Szilárd's book on debt had a strong opinion about fake money (debt and modern money) versus real natural capital (real wealth and resources). In it, he wrote:
"Debts are subject to the laws of mathematics rather than physics. Unlike wealth, which is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, debts do not rot with old age and are not consumed in the process of living. On the contrary, they grow at so much per cent per annum, by the well-known mathematical laws of simple and compound interest ... It is this underlying confusion between wealth and debt which has made such a tragedy of the scientific era."

I would agree with this statement, somewhat. I would also venture to say that he might have known very much that this kind of social idea - juxtaposed against his inevitably famous realization of the (formerly?) fictional weapon Wells talks about - would offset any doubt that he knows the difference between reality and virtual reality.

Back to H.G.Wells' story, the 'doubters' Wells wrote about as "mooting" the point of radioactive power were Rutherford, and William Ramsay and student Soddy.

Ramsay was one of the first scientists to appreciate the possibility of radiotherapy, studying with his medical colleagues the "curative action of radioactive substances in malignant disease"; indeed, Travers goes so far as to say that in this "he stood alone" (209). Ironically, and possibly as a result of his exposure to radioactive substances, he himself died of nasal cancer at the age of 63, not long after his retirement to Hazlemere in Buckinghamshire. A school there has since been named after him. Amongst other memorials to him, there is a wall-plaque in Westminster Abbey, a Ramsay Memorial Fellowship at University College, and a plaque to commemorate his work at the site of his laboratory, now occupied by the Slade School of Art.

In later life, it seems, Ramsay may have become a little harder to work with. Travers knew him a good deal more intimately than Tilden, and he includes a criticism of "the Chief" by another of his collaborators, Frederich Soddy, to the effect that that he was rather too quick "to let go sheet anchors" and trust his own findings (qtd. in Travers 292). However, without such leaps of faith Ramsay might never have made the discoveries that he did make. There was also a problem because of the war, when Ramsay created a stir by turning violently against the German scientific community, with which he had for so long had a very close and fruitful relationship. No doubt, as George Kaufmann generously suggests, this is best seen in the context of the time, and of his own painful illness.

Frederich Soddy himself was apparently an interesting character - also interested in monetary issues and the politics of war. He apparently proposed something like a Federal Reserve.

Soddy published The Interpretation of Radium (1909) and Atomic Transmutation (1953). In 1914 he was appointed to a chair at the University of Aberdeen, where he worked on research related to World War I. In 1919 he moved to Oxford University as Dr Lee's Professor of Chemistry, where, in the period up till 1936, he reorganized the laboratories and the syllabus in chemistry. He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his research in radioactive decay and particularly for his formulation of the theory of isotopes.

In four books written from 1921 to 1934, Soddy carried on a "quixotic campaign for a radical restructuring of global monetary relationships", offering a perspective on economics rooted in physics--the laws of thermodynamics, in particular--and was "roundly dismissed as a crank". While most of his proposals - "to abandon the gold standard, let international exchange rates float, use federal surpluses and deficits as macroeconomic policy tools that could counter cyclical trends, and establish bureaus of economic statistics (including a consumer price index) in order to facilitate this effort" - are now conventional practice, his critique of fractional-reserve banking still "remains outside the bounds of conventional wisdom".

It's slightly unclear who is framing Soddy's story of grounding us in reality instead of virtual reality as "outside the bounds of conventional wisdom." It is interesting to me that Soddy pre-empted Szilárd's writings about physics-based wealth (versus invented wealth of modern banking). Could Leó Szilárd - the "inventor of the Nuke" - have stolen the concept from an 'enemy' of his nuclear science to legitimize his social standing as ... a nuclear scientist?

Wikipedia adds that Soddy found (with Rutherford):

radioactivity is due to the transmutation of elements, now known to involve nuclear reactions. He also proved the existence of isotopes of certain radioactive elements. He received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1921, and has a crater named for him on the far side of the Moon.


Soddy and Rutherford were those who said the possibility of weaponization was doubtful.

It seems as though our modern understanding of nuclear power - though officially concentrated in London history - owes a lot to the Hungarian genius of this group - which flows right into Einstein and the Manhattan Project.

In August 1939, Szilárd approached his old friend and collaborator Albert Einstein and convinced him to sign the Einstein-Szilárd letter, lending the weight of Einstein's fame to the proposal. The letter led directly to the establishment of research into nuclear fission by the U.S. government and ultimately to the creation of the Manhattan Project. Szilárd, with Enrico Fermi, patented the nuclear reactor) [... and the invention of ...] thermonuclear fusion and the theory of the hydrogen bomb (Edward Teller)


The official story is somewhat simple, based on three stages leading to the development of the Nuke:

1. DOUBTERS - Rutherford, Soddy & Ramsay
2. DOUBTER-DOUBTERS - Szilárd & Fermi (inspired by German experiments and sci-fi writer Wells)
3. PROJECT CREATORS - Szilárd & Fermi & Einstein, etc.

During 1938 Szilárd accepted an offer to conduct research at Columbia University in Manhattan, and moved to New York, and was soon joined by Fermi. After learning about the successful nuclear fission experiment conducted during 1939 in Germany by Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassmann, Lise Meitner, and Otto Robert Frisch, Szilárd and Fermi concluded that uranium would be the element capable of sustaining a chain reaction. Szilárd and Fermi conducted a simple experiment at Columbia and discovered significant neutron multiplication in uranium, proving that the chain reaction was possible and enabling nuclear weapons. Szilárd later described the event: "We turned the switch and saw the flashes. We watched them for a little while and then we switched everything off and went home." He understood the implications and consequences of this discovery, though. "That night, there was very little doubt in my mind that the world was headed for grief."


If we be the DOUBTER-DOUBTER-DOUBTERS, then we may find allies in the works of Rutherford, Soddy & Ramsay ... but they have apparently been long disproven by subsequent discoveries so we would be allying with "old science" and trying to update it.

It is interesting how H.G.Wells changed our world so much based on his stories that people try to enact - what with the War of the Worlds hoax and other incredible fictions. It was easy for us to separate the hoax from the fiction in that case, because it was a tremendous failure for modern audiences (and they admitted it was a hoax!). Is the Nuke some sort of successful implementation of a hoax based on The World Set Free?
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby nonhocapito on Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:51 am

To refurbish our collection of pictures of THE BOMB. ... _atom.html

These days everything looks photo-shopped to me so... no comment.


* direct links to pictures are hidden here: ... 4_ATOM.xml

** incidentally, this toy-like picture reminds me of Gregory Corso's "Bomb".

"fierce with moustaches of gold"
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Unread postby brianv on Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:19 pm

idschmyd @ Oct 22 2010, 11:10 AM wrote: A still from Thunderbirds? Loved that military minded puppetry.

The link is cool, Nonho. ... _atom.html

The images are from 'How to photograph an atomic bomb' but sadly there's no explanation of how they captured images of the school bus (emotive choice of vehicle) going through alleged stages of nuclear blast damage without sending the camera through the same stages.



Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: The Nuke Hoax - How Far Does It Go?

Unread postby simonshack on Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:02 am


Just another look at the ONLY 2 EXISTING aerial pictures of the alleged NAGASAKI nuclear bomb...

Posts: 6773
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy


Return to WWI - WWII, the Nuke Hoax, the Cold War and JFK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests