Nukes do not exist

Discussions on other historical eras.
South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Nukes do not exist

Post by South » 04 Sep 2018 15:20

Good morning Uncle Bob,

The public material was kept in the public domain.

The classified stuff was always kept classified.

There are many lists of these events... and the related non-nuclear ones; think of Skull Canyon, Utah.

Some events missing from Jesk's list:

the Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina "mishap"
a similar mishap in Spain
the lost Soviet Sub NW of Hawaii that was retrieved by a US contractor (stories vary on salvage of entire sub or only part)
Still classified: that "double flash" in a remote area of the Indian Ocean

Actually, my "Good morning" salutation allows me to comply with restrictions to only use this heliograph during night hours.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5627
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Nukes do not exist

Post by Ironmachine » 04 Sep 2018 16:38

OpanaPointer wrote:
Ironmachine wrote:
jesk wrote:And why did not nuclear weapons be used after Japan? At least once..
Try at least to keep the internal consistency of your arguments. If you keep on saying that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were a fake, and that every nuclear test executed is also a cover up, how would an alleged third bomb used in combat change your mind?
He's asserting, without evidence, that we claimed to have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the "fact" that we haven't used them since proves they don't work, ever. As he resolutely ignores evidence he doesn't like it's pointless to rebutt anything he says.
Exactly. Jesk's main argument is that there are no nuclear bombs because they had not been used, and when they were used they were not nuclear bombs. With that line of reasoning, who needs any evidence? :wink:

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Nukes do not exist

Post by jesk » 04 Sep 2018 20:29

OpanaPointer wrote:
04 Sep 2018 12:26
Ironmachine wrote:
04 Sep 2018 07:53
jesk wrote:And why did not nuclear weapons be used after Japan? At least once..
Try at least to keep the internal consistency of your arguments. If you keep on saying that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were a fake, and that every nuclear test executed is also a cover up, how would an alleged third bomb used in combat change your mind?
He's asserting, without evidence, that we claimed to have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the "fact" that we haven't used them since proves they don't work, ever. As he resolutely ignores evidence he doesn't like it's pointless to rebutt anything he says.
Various sources call into question the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Americans cheated. For example, a photo of a bank building 300 meters from the epicenter. The windows and doors are intact. And then the list of inconsistencies.

http://conspiracytheory.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=3489

interview with Father John Siemes about his experiences in Hiroshima

Image

It was rumored that the ruined city would emit deadly rays for some time. I doubt that, because I myself and many others who worked in the ruined area for several hours after the explosion suffered no ill effects whatsoever.

Bank of Hiroshima

Image

ATOMIC BOMB HYSTERIA‘

By Major Alexander P. de Seversky

Author of “Victory Through Air Power,” etc.

(READER’S DIGEST, February 1946, pages 121 to 126)

As Special Consultant to the Secretary of War, Judge Robert P. Patterson, I spent nearly eight months intensively studying war destruction in Europe and Asia. I became thoroughly familiar with every variety of damage – from high explosives, incendiaries, artillery shells, dynamite, and combinations of these.

In this study, I inspected Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the targets of our atom bomb, examining the ruins, interrogating eyewitnesses and taking hundreds of pictures.

It was my considered opinion, I told correspondents in Tokyo, that the effects of the atom bombs – not of future bombs, but of these two – had been wildly exaggerated. If dropped on New York or Chicago, one of those bombs would have done no more damage than a ten-ton blockbuster; and the results in Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been achieved by about 200 B-29’s loaded with incendiaries, except that fewer Japanese would have been killed. I did not “underrate” atom bombs or dispute their future potential. I merely conveyed my professional findings on the physical results of the two bombs – and they happened to be in startling contrast to the hysterical imaginative versions spread through the world.

My findings were pounced upon in outraged anger by all sorts of people, in the press, on the air, at public forums; and by scientists who haven’t been within 5000 miles of Hiroshima. But the violence of this reaction cannot alter the facts on view in the two Japanese cities.

I began my study of Japan by flying over Yokohama, Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, and dozens of other places. Later I visited them all on foot.

All presented the same pattern. The bombed areas looked pinkish – an effect produced by the piles of ashes and rubble mixed with rusted metal. Modern buildings and factories still stood. That many of the buildings were gutted by fire was not apparent from the air. The center of Yokohama, for instance, seemed almost intact when viewed from an airplane. The long industrial belt stretching from Osaka to Kobe had been laid waste by fire, but the factories and other concrete structures were still standing. On the whole it was a picture quite different from what I had seen in German cities subjected to demolition bombardment. The difference lay in the fact that Japanese destruction was overwhelmingly incendiary, with comparatively little structural damage to inflammable targets.

In Hiroshima I was prepared for radically different sights. But, to my surprise, Hiroshima looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities in Japan.There was a familiar pink blot, about two miles in diameter. It was dotted with charred trees and telephone poles. Only one of the cities twenty bridges was down. Hiroshima’s clusters of modern buildings in the downtown section stood upright.

It was obvious that the blast could not have been so powerful as we had been led to believe. It was extensive blast rather than intensive.

I had heard of buildings instantly consumed by unprecedented heat. Yet here I saw the buildings structurally intact, and what is more, topped by undamaged flag poles, lightning rods, painted railings, air raid precaution signs and other comparatively fragile objects.

At the T-bridge, the aiming point for the atomic bomb, I looked for the “bald spot” where everything presumably had been vaporized in the twinkling of an eye. It wasn’t there or anywhere else. I could find no traces of unusual phenomena.

What I did see was in substance a replica of Yokohama or Osaka, or the Tokyo suburbs – the familiar residue of an area of wood and brick houses razed by uncontrollable fire. Everywhere I saw the trunks of charred and leafless trees, burned and unburned chunks of wood. The fire had been intense enough to bend and twist steel girders and to melt glass until it ran like lava – just as in other Japanese cities.

The concrete buildings nearest to the center of explosion, some only a few blocks from the heart of the atom blast, showed no structural damage. Even cornices, canopies and delicate exterior decorations were intact. Window glass was shattered, of course, but single-panel frames held firm; only window frames of two or more panels were bent and buckled. The blast impact therefore could not have been unusual.

Then I questioned a great many people who were inside such buildings when the bomb exploded. Their descriptions matched the scores of accounts I had heard from people caught in concrete buildings in areas hit by blockbusters. Hiroshima’s ten-story press building, about three blocks from the center of the explosion, was badly gutted by the fire following the explosion, but otherwise unhurt. The people caught in the building did not suffer any unusual effects.
Most of the window panels were blown out of the Hiroshima hospital, about a mile from the heart of the explosion. Because there were no wooden structures nearby, however, it escaped fire. The people inside the hospital were not seriously affected by the blast. In general the effects here were analogous to those produced by the blast of a distant TNT bomb.

The total death, destruction and horror in Hiroshima were as great as reported. But the character of the damage was in no sense unique; neither the blast nor the heat was so tremendous as generally assumed.

In NAGASAKI, concrete buildings were gutted by fire but were still standing upright.

All of downtown Nagasaki, though chiefly wooden in construction, survived practically undamaged. It was explained that apparently it had been shielded from the explosion by intervening hills. But another part of Nagasaki, in a straight, unimpeded line from the explosion center and not protected by the hills, also escaped serious damage. The Nagasaki blast had virtually dissipated itself by the time it reached this area. Few houses collapsed and none caught fire.

All destruction in Nagasaki has been popularly credited to the atom bomb. Actually, the city had been heavily bombed six days before. The famous Mitsubishi plant was badly punished by eight high-explosive direct hits.

What actually happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There is little evidence of primary fire; that is to say, fire kindled by the heat of the explosive itself. The bomb presumably exploded too far above ground for that. If the temperature within the exploding area of an atom bomb is super high (and the effects in New Mexico tend to indicate that) then the heat must have been dissipated in space. What struck Hiroshima was the blast.

It was like a great fly swatter two miles broad, slapped down on a city of flimsy, half-rotted wooden houses and rickety brick buildings. It flattened them out in one blow, burying perhaps 200,000 people in the debris. Its effectiveness was increased by the incredible flimsiness of most Japanese structures, built of two-by-fours, termite-eaten and ry-rotted, and top-heavy with thick tile roofs.

The wooden slats of the collapsed houses were piled like so much kindling wood in your fireplace. Fires flared simultaneously in thousands of places, from short-circuits, over-turned stoves, kerosene lamps and broken gas mains. The whole area burst into one fantastic bonfire.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Nukes do not exist

Post by jesk » 04 Sep 2018 20:30

In incendiary attacks, people have a chance of escape. They run from their houses into the streets, to open places, to the rivers. In Hiroshima the majority had no such chance. Thousands of them must have been killed outright by falling walls and roofs; the rest were pinned down in a burning hell. Some 60,000, it is estimated, were burned to death.

Those who did manage to extricate themselves rushed for the bridges. There is reason to believe that one of the bridges collapsed under the weight of the frenzied mobs, although some maintain that it was brought down by the bomb blast. On the other bridges, the crush of hysterical humanity pushed out the railings, catapulting thousands to death by drowning. The missing railings were not wrenched out by the bomb blast as widely reported.

On a vast and horrifying scale it was fire, just fire, that took such high toll of life and property in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The victims did not die instantaneously in a sort of atomic dissolution. They died as people die in any fire. Quite possibly the blast was strong enough to cause internal injuries to many of those caught in the center of explosion; particularly lung injuries – a familiar effect of ordinary high-explosive bombing.

Perhaps there were some deaths from radioactivity. I met people who had heard of casualties from radio burns and radio poisoning. But I could not obtain direct confirmation. The doctors and nurses at the hospitals I visited had no such cases under their care, though some of them had heard of such cases. I also interrogated fire fighters and Red Cross workers who had rushed to the scene in the first few minutes. They all denied personal knowledge of any lingering radioactivity.

Such are the facts as I found them – they seem to me tragic enough without pseudoscientific trimmings. I am not alone in my opinions. Scientific observers on the spot to whom I talked in general shared my point of view. Nothing official came from the War Department to justify the wild exaggeration. It simply is not true that matter was vaporized in the intense heat – if steel had evaporated certainly wood would have done the same, and undamaged wood abounds everywhere in the rubble. In neither of the bombed cities was there a bald spot such as was created in the New Mexico experiment, and both atom-bombed areas have tree trunks and walls with growing vines to disprove the claims of super heat.

The more painstakingly I analyze my observations, indeed, the more convinced I am that the same bombs dropped on New York or Chicago, Pittsburgh or Detroit, would have exacted no more toll on life than one of our big blockbusters, and the property damage might have been limited to broken window glass over a wide area. Tue, the atom bombs apparently were released too high for maximum effect. Exploded closer to the ground, the results of intense heat might have been impressive. But in that case the blast might have been localized, sharply reducing the area of destruction.

Three scientists at the University of Chicago took me severely to task for saying 200 B-29’s with incendiaries could have done as much damage. They pointed out “that if 200 Superforts with ordinary bombs could wipe out Hiroshima as a single atomic bomb did, the same number of planes could wipe 200 cities with atomic bombs.”

These experts merely forgot to mention one detail – that the 200 cities should be as flimsy as Hiroshima. On a steel-and-concrete city high explosives would have to be added to the job. One atomic bomb hurled at Hiroshima was equal to 200 Superforts; but in New York or Chicago a different kind of atomic bomb exploding in different fashion, would be needed before it could equal one Superfort loaded with high explosives.

It seems to me completely misleading to say that the atomic bomb used on Japan was “20,000 times more powerful” than a TNT blockbuster. From the view of total energy generated, this may be correct. But we are not concerned with the energy released into space. What we are concerned with is the portion which achieves effective demolition. From that point of view, the 20,000 figure is reduced immediately to 200 for a target like Hiroshima. For a target like New York, the figure of 20,000 drops to one or less.

However, the comparison of the atom bomb with a TNT bomb, at this stage of development, is like comparing a flaming torch with a pneumatic drill. Everything depends on whether you’re trying to burn a wooden fence or demolish a concrete wall. All we can say with certainty is that the atomic bomb proved supremely effective in destroying a highly flimsy and inflammable city. It was one of those cases when the right force was used against the right target at the right time to produce the maximum effect. Those who made the tactical decision to use it in these cases should be highly complimented.

The bomb dropped on Nagasaki was said to be a great many times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. Yet the damage in Nagasaki was much smaller. In Hiroshima 4.1 square miles were razed; in Nagasaki only one square mile. The improved atom bomb, in other words, was only about one fourth as effective!

Why? There are various theories, but no one knows for certain. It underlines the fat that something besides additional mass will be needed to produce greater results on the target. Eventually, of course, the problem of obtaining maximum results from atom missile will be solved. Methods will surely be found for dissipating less of the released energy in space and directing more of it to destruction.

The Chicago scientists reminded me in their statement that “the bombs dropped on Japan were the first atomic bombs ever made. They are firecrackers compared with what will be developed ten or 20 years.”

That is exactly the point I am trying to make: that they are as yet in the primitive stage. Humankind has stampeded into a state of near hysteria at the first exhibits of atomic destruction. Fantasy is running wild. There are those who think we ought to dispense with all other national defence. They talk of a dozen suicides who will put on false whiskers, take compact atomic bombs in suitcases, and blow this country to bits. Such hyperbole is exciting, but it is a dangerous basis for national thinking.

On the size of the bombs, incidentally, there has been much uninformed rhetoric. How do so many people know that the atomic bombs weighed only “a few ounces” or “a few pounds”? After all, our biggest bomber, not a pursuit plane, was chosen to carry it.

A conspiracy of circumstances whipped up atomic hysteria. The Japanese had every reason to propagate extreme versions. The atom bomb gave the perfect face saving excuse for surrender. They could now pretend that an almost supernatural element had intervened to force their defeat.

The BOMB provided a face saver for or leadership as well. Our leaders were deeply committed to invasion, insisting that there could be no victory without meeting the Japanese armies in traditional fashion. We were winning a victory over Japan through air power, but I am personally convinced that we would have gone through with the invasion anyway and paid the tragic and unnecessary cost in life. The momentum of the old assumptions was too great to be arrested.

The atom bomb instantly released everybody from past commitments. The nightmare of an invasion was cancelled, a miracle saving perhaps half a million American and several million Japanese lives. Though the Hiroshima and Nagasaki episodes added less than three percent to the material devastation already visited on Japan by air power, its psychological value was incalculable – for both the defeated and the victors.

The atom bomb fitted propaganda purposes. To isolationists it seemed final proof that we could let the rest of the world stew in its own juices – with our head start in atomic energy and our superior know-how, we were safe. The internationalists, on the other hand, tried to intimidate us by reminding us that we had no monopoly on science. Everyone could manufacture the atomic bomb, they said, and if we didn’t play ball we would be destroyed.

I am one of those who fought against inertia in the domain of air power. Consequently I am gratified that in relation to atomic energy the public is alert, that we are planning well ahead. But there is no call for the kind of frenzy that paralyzes understanding. Our only safety is in a calm confrontation of the truth.

I earnestly urge a cooling-off period on atomic speculation.

I am the last one to deny that atomic energy injects a vital and perhaps revolutionary new factor into military science and world relations. But I do not believe that the revolution has already taken place and that we should surrender all our normal faculties to a kind of atomic frenzy. Whatever we decide to do, let us do it calmly, logically and above all without doing violence to ascertainable facts.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Nukes do not exist

Post by jesk » 04 Sep 2018 20:50

I think the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima was thermobaric. something like this:


OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4772
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Nukes do not exist

Post by OpanaPointer » 04 Sep 2018 21:05

You have a lot of copyright questions in those previous posts.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: Nukes Do Not Exist - (Aesop's Fables Continued).

Post by Robert Rojas » 04 Sep 2018 21:07

Greetings to both citizen Jesk and the community as a whole. Howdy Jesk! Well sir, in deference to your point OR points-of-view as articulated within your respective postings of Tuesday - September 04, 2018 - 11:29am and Tuesday - September 04, 2018 - 11:30am, it is all well and good to dispute the effects of the HEAT and BLAST during the course of such a detonation, but is there some overriding reason why you have studiously avoided the impact of RADIATION poisoning during the course of your treatise? I would be very interested to read your dispassionate take on the physiological impact of the three forms of radiation that are generated during the course of such a detonation. Thank you in advance for entertaining my pointed inquiry. Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this contentious topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of White Russia.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Nukes do not exist

Post by jesk » 04 Sep 2018 21:13

OpanaPointer wrote:
04 Sep 2018 21:05
You have a lot of copyright questions in those previous posts.
Source:By Major Alexander P. de Seversky. You can see

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: RE: Nukes Do Not Exist - (Aesop's Fables Continued).

Post by jesk » 04 Sep 2018 21:16

Robert Rojas wrote:
04 Sep 2018 21:07
Greetings to both citizen Jesk and the community as a whole. Howdy Jesk! Well sir, in deference to your point OR points-of-view as articulated within your respective postings of Tuesday - September 04, 2018 - 11:29am and Tuesday - September 04, 2018 - 11:30am, it is all well and good to dispute the effects of the HEAT and BLAST during the course of such a detonation, but is there some overriding reason why you have studiously avoided the impact of RADIATION poisoning during the course of your treatise? I would be very interested to read your dispassionate take on the physiological impact of the three forms of radiation that are generated during the course of such a detonation. Thank you in advance for entertaining my pointed inquiry. Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this contentious topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of White Russia.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
Yes, I know. read and You with the topic. The Jesuits say they did not see any radiation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Nukes do not exist

Post by South » 04 Sep 2018 21:35

https://www.naav.com/index.htm


Good afternoon all,

Above links to the Atomic Veterans Association.

At the left, if you click on "Other Sites", you'll see:
The Atomic Archive
Etc.

Above link for research. I personally could not tell the difference between or among a thermometric, a fuel-air or just a plain atomic detonation.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4772
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Nukes do not exist

Post by OpanaPointer » 04 Sep 2018 22:12

jesk wrote:
04 Sep 2018 21:13
OpanaPointer wrote:
04 Sep 2018 21:05
You have a lot of copyright questions in those previous posts.
Source:By Major Alexander P. de Seversky. You can see
And your permission to repost it?
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4772
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Nukes do not exist

Post by OpanaPointer » 04 Sep 2018 22:13

Image
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4772
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Nukes do not exist

Post by OpanaPointer » 04 Sep 2018 22:15

Last edited by OpanaPointer on 04 Sep 2018 22:45, edited 1 time in total.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Nukes do not exist

Post by jesk » 04 Sep 2018 22:20

OpanaPointer wrote:
04 Sep 2018 22:12
jesk wrote:
04 Sep 2018 21:13
OpanaPointer wrote:
04 Sep 2018 21:05
You have a lot of copyright questions in those previous posts.
Source:By Major Alexander P. de Seversky. You can see
And your permission to repost it?
What are you talking about?

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Nukes do not exist

Post by jesk » 04 Sep 2018 22:22

Image


Return to “Other eras”