Latest / UK Column Radio / No Atom Bombs Were Dropped on Japan

Transcript

No Atom Bombs Were Dropped on Japan · UK Column Radio

0:38
Michael Palmer, thank you for joining me in the Trenches.
0:41
What is your background? Oh, I'm a medical doctor by
0:45
training. So I got my training in Germany
0:48
where I grew up, and after doing research in microbiology and
0:55
biochemistry for a decade at Mindt University with Sutarid
1:00
Bhakti, I went to North America and ended up in the year 2001 at
1:06
the University of Waterloo in the chemistry department where I
1:10
taught biochemistry, did research on biochemistry for two
1:14
decades and in 2022 I was sacked there because I refused to take
1:20
the poisonous COVID shot. And since then I have been
1:25
amusing myself at home and writing stuff and.
1:28
The COVID era significantly changed the paradigms of so many
1:33
people, including myself. It was a good thing, wasn't it,
1:36
In many. Ways, Yeah, it was.
1:39
I mean, I had been, let's say, half a week to a few things
1:43
before that, but COVID actually did managed to shock me.
1:46
I mean, one way in which it shocked me was really that I
1:49
fully realised how difficult it is for many people to even look
1:56
at inconvenient facts and draw the obvious and appropriate
2:00
conclusions, even if those are not inherently difficult from a
2:04
scientific or logical point of view.
2:08
Just simply they seem to block them out because they are
2:13
inconvenient, they don't fit the world view, they would be
2:16
upsetting if fully taken on board.
2:18
And so therefore they are simply refused, they are blocked out.
2:23
And that I didn't really understand this, the extent of
2:28
this problem before, I must say. So in COVID, in the COVID era, I
2:33
came to realise how many people are affected by it.
2:38
But on the other hand, obviously there was a substantial minority
2:44
of people, let's say, that actually did wake up and during
2:47
this era and realised that the deceptions went a lot deeper and
2:50
further than just covered alone. What is the central hypothesis
2:55
here? OK.
2:56
So I'm concerned specifically with the atomic bombings of
3:00
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I mean, there was also a very
3:03
substantial conventional bombing campaign beginning with a large
3:06
raid on Tokyo in March 1945. It had started before that, but
3:11
this was the first really large scale conventional attack.
3:14
So I am specifically concerned with the bombings of Hiroshima
3:18
and Nagasaki and the conclusion that I reached during my
3:27
research. I looked into this topic for
3:29
about two years and wrote a book on it, and the conclusion is
3:33
that there were no nuclear bombs, no atomic bombs in either
3:37
city. On the other hand, these were
3:41
not just simply regular fire bombings, but instead the
3:45
Americans indeed tried to fake the appearance of two atomic
3:50
bombings of nuclear detonations. And there is both physical
3:54
evidence and medical evidence that points to this conclusion,
3:59
both that there were no true atomic bombings, but also that
4:04
the Americans did try to fake the appearance of such bombings.
4:09
As I say here on the title slide right, I already mentioned that
4:14
the Americans tried to fake the appearance of atomic bombings.
4:18
And two key ingredients of this fakery were napal and mustard
4:24
gas, right? Both were used in staging these
4:28
attacks. Napalm had been used also in the
4:31
fire bombings. It was indeed the most widely
4:34
used incendiary in those conventional fire bombings.
4:39
But the use of napalm was a little bit disguised in
4:43
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think. And mustard gas was a specific
4:47
ingredient that was used to create the so called radiation
4:54
sickness. Mustard gas has effects that are
4:59
similar to true radiation, and I think there's pretty good
5:03
evidence that indeed this was used instead of radioactivity or
5:07
nuclear radiation. Why do you think, Michael, that
5:11
so few people understand this particular argument?
5:18
Well, I mean, the the narrative has been jumped into our heads
5:26
from very early on. So I think most people just
5:29
simply, they don't even listen to the possibility.
5:31
I think they just shut off immediately if you suggest to
5:35
them that this might be another fake story.
5:38
So that's the first point. I must say I have not come
5:42
across any other books that specifically postulate the use
5:49
of mustard gas in Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
5:53
I have seen books that claim that both cities were simply
5:59
firebombed in the same way that the other cities that are in in
6:02
Japan were firebombed. And I think that really is not
6:05
correct. I think that writes roughshod
6:07
over a lot of eyewitness evidence and also over physical
6:11
and medical evidence. And indeed, if you look at the
6:14
medical and physical evidence in a superficial sort of way, or
6:17
you look only at the small segment of it, you might
6:21
persuade yourself that after all, there must have been atomic
6:24
bombs. So you really have to look
6:26
closely and you have to look at the entire picture in order to
6:29
understand that this evidence was indeed staged and faked.
6:34
And I think I will, yes. Yeah, go ahead.
6:36
There is that that that Japanese engineer, I I can't remember his
6:40
name now, but. But he wrote he.
6:43
Didn't he? Didn't say the same as you, but
6:45
he did say that there was no evidence of an atomic bomb.
6:48
That's correct. Yeah.
6:50
So this also, I think you mean Akio Nagatani, he wrote OK.
6:57
So I think that this is a pen name.
7:01
And from the writing style where you get, I get the impression
7:05
that he's an American. Other than that, OK.
7:14
Other than that, I also do get the impression that his
7:17
qualifications are indeed real. So he claims to be an expert in
7:20
applied mathematics, and I see nothing in his writing style and
7:25
in his conclusions that contradicts that claim that I
7:27
think that is real. I think he simply took a pen
7:31
name, a Japanese pen name, in order to protect his identity.
7:36
So that's it. But he indeed, he claims, it's
7:38
quite interesting actually. So he claims to have carried out
7:42
computer simulations, which is what an applied mathematician
7:46
would do. That simulates the time course
7:51
of a nuclear chain reaction inside a bomb.
7:54
What he concludes is, as far as I can understand his somewhat
7:58
incomplete description of those simulations, is that the change
8:04
reaction simply proceeds too slow.
8:07
If it is too slow right, then the energy is released not quite
8:13
fast enough. So what happens is that before
8:16
the chain reaction has enveloped enough of the nuclear fuel, it
8:22
the critical mass is already blown apart.
8:24
So the chain reaction can only continue as long as the critical
8:27
mass stays together. And if the energy is released in
8:35
a somewhat successive fashion right in the middle of the, the
8:40
material that is affected by it heats up and then things simply
8:44
blow apart and then the the detonation sort of fizzles.
8:49
So that means without a strong containment, you cannot create a
8:56
strong detonation. That seems to be that.
8:59
That seems to be his conclusion. And he apparently has done this
9:05
separately, both for the uranium bomb supposedly used in
9:11
Hiroshima and for the plutonium bomb supposedly used in
9:16
Nagasaki. And he therefore concludes that
9:19
these bombs could not have worked.
9:21
He takes it further and says that no atomic bombs or no
9:25
atomic, yeah, no nuclear weapons could work at all at any time.
9:32
That may be so, but I cannot really judge this.
9:34
I'm not an engineer, a nuclear engineer, this sort of thing by
9:37
training, and I don't have enough insight into how general
9:43
these conclusions are really applicable.
9:48
So I leave that up to others. I really hope that at some point
9:52
a nuclear physicist or a nuclear chemist will do a detailed
9:57
analysis of all the fallout left behind by the nuclear test in
10:01
later time periods and figure out what will depend on there.
10:05
So I do think that some sort of nuclear detonations were staged.
10:10
Now, if I were tasked, if I were asked to fake nuclear bomb test,
10:18
what I would propose to do, I couldn't do it myself, but what
10:21
I would propose to do is to simply build an underground
10:25
reactor which is strong containment, and then just
10:29
simply let it go critical just the same way that nuclear, that
10:32
that, that Chernobyl, that the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl
10:37
just went out of control. You simply let the chain
10:41
reaction build and it just will take as long as it takes, no
10:45
matter whether it's fast or slow, it will continue on
10:49
building until the pressure inside the thing gets too high
10:53
and the containment blows up. So the strength of the
10:56
detonation would then be limited not by not so much by the amount
10:59
of nuclear fuel inside it, but by the strength of the
11:02
containment. And that's what I suspect was
11:06
done at least in some of the later nuclear tests.
11:10
So yeah, I already commented on the use of mustard gas, so I
11:14
don't think I need to repeat this.
11:16
So then we can go on. As mentioned, many listen,
11:20
listeners may disbelieve the entire idea and will not be
11:23
willing to give it much time at all.
11:25
So therefore I want to start off with some official documents
11:28
from the Manhattan Project, which themselves plainly
11:32
contradict the official narrative.
11:34
So we start with a quick summary of the official story.
11:38
There was supposed to have been three nuclear detonations during
11:42
the year 1945. First was the bomb test on July
11:47
16th, 1945. This is said to have been a
11:50
plutonium bomb. And then the next one was the
11:54
bomb supposed to drop the Hiroshima on August 6th.
11:57
And then three days after that, the plutonium bomb on Nagasaki
12:02
was stopped. So interestingly enough, the
12:05
uranium bomb supposed to use Hiroshima was never tested even
12:10
once. So the scientific genius of the
12:13
Manhattan Project allegedly just knew it would work and that no
12:16
test would be necessary. That already sounds a little bit
12:20
like something out of Hollywood and not so much out of real
12:23
life. But OK, let's compare the story
12:25
to some official documents. Here we have Arthur Compton,
12:31
physics novelist who was the head of the physics division of
12:35
the Manhattan Project, and he was particularly keen on
12:39
developing the plutonium bomb technology and spoke on this
12:43
topic at a secret meeting on May 31st, 1945.
12:48
And you actually can find the protocol of that meeting on the
12:51
Internet. And what he says here at the
12:54
meeting is that plutonium had not yet been purified.
12:58
It would take two more years from that date, from May 45, to
13:04
purify plutonium, and then about one more year to obtain
13:08
plutonium in sufficient quantity for building bombs.
13:12
And if you read the entire protocol carefully, then you
13:16
will also come to the conclusion that even the reactor grade
13:19
uranium. So there are two grades of
13:22
uranium very much in the news again now in connection with
13:25
Iran, right. So you enrich uranium 235 from
13:29
its natural abundance of approximately 0.7% to about 3%
13:36
in order to use it in a reactor. And in the Hiroshima bomb, it
13:40
was supposedly enriched to 80%, so very much higher.
13:46
And at this time, at the time of this meeting, even reactor great
13:51
uranium was still in very short supply.
13:54
So it is very unlikely that uranium bombs could have been
13:58
built at the time. But nevertheless, at this
14:02
meeting, Compton claimed that uranium bombs were already in
14:07
production, probably to impress the politicians who were also in
14:13
attendance at the meeting. OK, now if indeed there were
14:17
already multiple such bombs, then you would expect that such
14:22
a bomb would have been tested before being used in war against
14:26
Hiroshima. And interestingly, in this
14:29
connection, we have the report of this young man, Robert
14:37
Wilson, very capable physicist. He oversaw the experimental
14:42
research at Los Alamos. So he was reporting to Compton,
14:47
I suppose. Now what he reports on is that
14:53
very hurriedly in the critical days before the 1st nuclear
14:57
explosion, he carried out an experiment to make sure that
15:03
none of the nuclear fission reactions were delayed beyond a
15:07
certain period of time, certain amount of time, because this
15:11
delay would have deleterious effects on the efficiency of the
15:15
explosion. What this means is until he had
15:19
done this experiment, they couldn't be sure that the
15:22
uranium bomb would work right. So this would be a very good
15:25
reason, as already stated, for testing such a bomb.
15:28
But this test was not carried out.
15:31
Interestingly enough, he also seems to be seems to have been
15:35
under the impression that the first bomb test would use
15:40
uranium, not plutonium. So this would be a contradiction
15:44
to the official story as well, right?
15:46
So we have both Compton and Wilson in their reports, in
15:50
their respective reports plainly contradicting the official story
15:56
of the first three nuclear detonations, in particular of
15:59
the use of plutonium bombs in the first bomb test and in
16:04
Nagasaki. So we don't even have to go any
16:08
further than just official documents of the US government
16:15
to come up with some reasons to doubt the official story.
16:19
So then we have to decide what really happened there.
16:23
So we should look at the evidence ourselves.
16:27
So then what sorts of evidence are usually cited to support the
16:32
official story of the atomic bombings, right.
16:34
So we have the evidence of total annihilation of the two cities.
16:39
Then we have radioactive fallout left behind by these bombings.
16:43
And we have the victims of radiation sickness.
16:47
Other victims suffered flash burns.
16:49
Some obviously suffered both at the same time.
16:52
And then we have the famous atomic shadows allegedly left
16:56
behind by people who were evaporated in an instant, and
17:00
only their shadows were left behind on the wall of the
17:03
pavement. And if we conclude, as I propose
17:07
we should, that there were indeed no nuclear detonations,
17:11
and we also have to consider why was this staged and why would
17:16
the Japanese have failed to notice what was going on?
17:20
How were they being fooled? Right.
17:22
So we will go through all of this today in a little bit of
17:25
detail. Here's the book which I have
17:28
written on the topic. You can find it for free at my
17:31
website, also on archive.org. You can also buy print copies on
17:35
the lower Amazon if you are so inclined.
17:38
One key point is that in this book I list all the references
17:43
for the evidence I will show, right?
17:45
So these are mostly published books and scientific papers, so
17:49
I won't go through these references today.
17:51
You can all look them up in the book if you are interested.
17:55
So let's start with this gentleman who was an early
18:01
eyewitness of the damage done by the bombings in both of these
18:08
cities. Okay, so Alexander Deserverski,
18:12
he had actually grown up in Russia.
18:14
He had been a fighter pilot for his native country in World War
18:18
One and shortly after, probably because of the revolution.
18:21
And it's the living conditions engendered by it.
18:26
He fled the country, went to the United States.
18:29
There he became a successful engineer and constructor of
18:34
combat aircraft. And he had very good connections
18:36
to the US government. And after World War Two, he was
18:40
sent on an inspection tour of the bombed out cities both in
18:43
Germany and in Japan. And he had seen many cities
18:47
destroyed by conventional bombings before visiting
18:50
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And if you read the quote here
18:53
from a book of his, then he professes astonishment that
19:01
Hiroshima and Nagasaki look the same as the other cities.
19:04
So this quote only deals with Hiroshima, but he confirms later
19:07
on explicitly also for Nagasaki. OK.
19:11
And he also shows some pictures. And this is a picture of
19:16
downtown Hiroshima. Hiroshima is situated in the
19:19
river delta. So this is one of the delta arms
19:22
that traverse the city, and the buildings here are more or less
19:27
directly at the Hippo centre. So the Hippo Centre is the point
19:31
on the ground that is directly beneath the detonation of the
19:36
atomic bomb, and the atomic bomb is said to have been set off at
19:41
a height of approximately 600 metres above ground.
19:46
So what he points out is that these buildings are still
19:49
standing. They are obviously damaged, some
19:51
of some of them severely, but other steel, concrete structures
19:55
are still standing. And he says that the
20:00
destruction, the extent of destruction in the city was
20:03
actually less than in Berlin, for example.
20:07
What had been completely distorted were the many wooden
20:11
buildings, right? Both cities, as many other
20:13
Japanese cities, consisted mostly of wooden buildings of
20:18
traditional construction, and they simply had been burnt to
20:21
the ground. But as far as the force of the
20:24
explosion went, there was nothing unusual to be seen in
20:29
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So we can conclude that the
20:33
extent of destruction did not exceed that scene in other
20:38
cities and does not force us to conclude that something very
20:41
unusual had been going on. Then return to the radioactive
20:46
bomb fallout, right? I already mentioned that we had
20:49
two different bomb types in the two cities.
20:52
The Hiroshima bomb is said to have consisted of 50 kilogrammes
20:57
of enriched uranium 235 and of that only approximately 1
21:04
kilogramme is said to have actually fission.
21:07
So the other 49 kilogramme should have come down and been
21:10
found somewhere on the ground. Obviously not all of it in the
21:13
city, but there should have been a decent amount of it in the
21:16
city. And from the one kilogramme of
21:21
fission, uranium 235, there should have been formed about 35
21:26
gramme of cesium 137, which is widely used as a fallout marker.
21:32
And in Nagasaki, the plutonium bomb is said to have contained 6
21:37
kilogramme plutonium 239. And again about 1 kilogramme is
21:41
said to have fission producing a similar amount of cesium.
21:46
And the other five kilogramme should have been found on the
21:49
ground. So how much stuff was actually
21:51
found on the ground? What we have here is a gamma ray
21:57
spectrum from an early soil sample from Hiroshima.
22:01
So this sample was taken only about 3 days after the bombing
22:06
in Hiroshima, so before the fallout could have been washed
22:11
away by rain or blown away by the wind.
22:14
Apparently the weather was sunny and dry at the time.
22:18
And so in a gamma ray spectrum, what you do is you separate the
22:23
radiation emitted by all these different isotopes which you may
22:27
have in your sample according to the energy, right.
22:31
So each isotope emits gamma rays with a characteristic energy and
22:36
you can separate those and then each isotope will produce one of
22:40
these peaks here. And what we see here in black
22:44
are the is the mixture of natural background
22:47
radioactivity. The highest peak is due to
22:50
potassium 40, right, fairly close to the right hand side,
22:54
this highest peak there. And then you see the cesium 137,
22:59
which is artificial and it produces only a tiny peak.
23:03
That's a bit which I have highlighted here in red.
23:06
Now this measurement was carried out in 1996, so approximately 50
23:11
years after the supposed nuclear bombing.
23:15
In that time, the cesium would have already decayed to an
23:20
extent of about 2/3. So had the same measurement been
23:23
carried out in 1945, the peak should have been three times
23:28
higher than it actually was, but still, it would have been a lot
23:30
lower than several of the natural peaks here.
23:34
So that means there was only a tiny amount of cesium that was
23:38
reaching the ground at that point, certainly a lot less than
23:41
you would have expected. So another point to observe is
23:48
that as already mentioned, and later decades, in the 50s
23:54
mostly, many countries carried out nuclear bomb tests, right?
23:59
So that was the United States, but also Russia and then later
24:04
on China and so on. And the fallout from these bomb
24:08
tests, right, reached the atmosphere and was dispersed
24:11
across the globe, particularly the Northern hemisphere.
24:16
And you can find this fallout reductivity everywhere.
24:19
You can also find it in Hiroshima.
24:21
And you actually find more fallout derived from these later
24:25
bomb tests in Hiroshima. Then you find fallout from 1945,
24:32
so that essentially already tells you the story.
24:34
You don't really need to go any further than that, but one can
24:38
go further and can actually make more specific arguments.
24:43
The next thing here we have a very interesting study.
24:48
The sample in question is shown in the picture.
24:50
This is a plasterboard, a piece of plasterboard from a house in
24:56
Hiroshima whose roof had been blown up.
24:59
So apparently due to the setting off of some conventional
25:02
explosives, the roof had been blown off and then this
25:05
plasterboard became soiled by droplets of black rain.
25:10
You may have heard that the so called black rain in Hiroshima
25:15
carried the fallout right? So this is just as good a sample
25:19
of fallout as it gets. So you have the droplets, the
25:21
residue of droplets of black rain directly on the
25:25
plasterboard here. So now uranium is actually
25:29
somewhat ubiquitous in nature. So you have to expect some
25:32
natural background uranium in the plaster itself.
25:36
So the samples taken from the plaster board can contain some
25:40
in principle can contain uranium from the bomb and also from
25:45
natural background. Now, since the bomb uranium is
25:49
enriched for uranium 235, you should be able to tell from the
25:53
mixture of the two isotopes in your sample what fraction comes
25:58
from the bomb and what fraction comes from the background.
26:01
And you may have guessed it, the highest amount that you can find
26:05
derived from the bomb is no more than 0.2%, right?
26:11
So 99.8% of the stuff in the sample comes from the plaster.
26:16
And no, only one 0.2% would come from the bomb.
26:21
That is, if you believe that indeed the stuff that was
26:25
dispersed at the time was indeed as highly as enriched as
26:29
claimed. And it can be shown also from
26:31
other studies that it was indeed not right.
26:33
It was only very weakly enriched, in keeping also with
26:38
this meeting protocol, which already mentioned they simply
26:41
did not have the technology at the time to produce highly
26:45
enriched uranium in relevant amounts.
26:50
So in conclusion, in Hiroshima we find only tiny amounts of
26:54
fission products, cesium being the marker for that, and also of
26:59
the bomb uranium. What we do find, however, in
27:03
Hiroshima is not only cesium but also plutonium.
27:08
OK. Now plutonium is formed from
27:13
uranium 235 in reactive fuel, right?
27:18
So in reactive fuel, you have lots of you have a bit of
27:21
enriched uranium 235, you have lots of uranium 238, and this
27:25
uranium 238 can capture some of the neutrons released by the
27:31
fission of uranium 235, and then it turns into plutonium 239.
27:36
This happens in the reactor, but it should happen only to a very,
27:40
very small degree in a detonating uranium 235 bomb.
27:46
Nevertheless, in the Hiroshima fallout, you do find plutonium
27:52
in amounts that are characteristic of reactor fuel.
27:56
So what this means is that the material that was disbursed in
28:00
Hiroshima did not come from any detonating device.
28:04
It simply was reactor waste. It was reactor material.
28:09
Now, the authors of the study studies, this was this was a
28:12
Japanese group of researchers. They expressed surprise at
28:17
finding this plutonium in these samples, and so they are
28:22
actually taking precautions to avoid contamination of the
28:26
samples by the global fallout from later bomb tests.
28:31
And they did this by sampling soil from underneath wooden
28:37
houses that had been built shortly after the bombings in
28:42
the Hiroshima area. OK, so then this fallout should
28:45
have been what? The soil should have been
28:47
protected from the fallout from later bomb test.
28:50
So they explain it by postulating that somehow the
28:53
fallout got underneath these houses anyway.
28:56
But this doesn't wash for two reasons.
28:59
The first one is that the fallout underneath these houses
29:04
is stuck at the surface of the soil right, which is shown here
29:09
on the left. So the author showed 4 samples
29:12
and then three of them the highest amount of rate activity
29:16
was found at the very top of the sample and in the other, in the
29:21
fourth sample it was found at the depths of five centimetres
29:27
in soil samples taken simply from in the open right.
29:30
So this soil would have received both the rate activity dispersed
29:37
in 1945 and during later bomb tests we see that the fallout
29:42
has migrated. So probably due to percolating
29:45
rainwater, it is now found at a depth of five to 10 centimetres
29:48
in the soil. But that is still too slow.
29:53
This rate of transport obviously is way too slow to cause any
29:58
sort of transport from soil outside the houses to underneath
30:04
those houses. So this proposed mechanism of
30:06
contamination simply doesn't apply.
30:08
We have to conclude that the plutonium found in these samples
30:12
was indeed dispersed already in 1945, and therefore indeed that
30:16
reactor material was dispersed. OK, let's turn to Nagasaki.
30:22
In Nagasaki we actually find higher levels of fallout.
30:25
It also includes a fair amount of plutonium, but somewhat
30:29
strangely, we find it at a distance of approximately 3
30:33
kilometres from the hippocenter in the Nishiyama Reservoir.
30:38
That's a small artificial body of water, right?
30:41
It's really no obvious reason why so much fallout should be
30:44
concentrated there, but it is. Now, how this has come about, we
30:51
actually will get to the bottom of it, and quite literally so,
30:54
because in the year 2008, a group of Japanese researchers
31:00
did a detailed study on the fallout.
31:03
What they did do was to drill up a core of sediment from this
31:08
reservoir, right? So they drilled a into the
31:13
sediment to a depth of apparently at least 470
31:17
centimetres. They pulled up this plug right,
31:20
sliced it up and looked for the amount of radioactivity in each
31:25
of the slices. And at a depth of approximately
31:27
440 centimetres, they find a High Peak of radioactivity that
31:31
includes both plutonium and also cesium.
31:37
Now, what they also find is a layer that contains charcoal
31:41
particles. That layer is about 15
31:45
centimetres below the productivity.
31:49
And so they ascribe these charcoal particles to the soot
31:54
of the burning city, right? Both cities burned up after
31:57
being bombed in 1945. I think that's a plausible
32:02
explanation for these charcoal particles.
32:04
But we then have to conclude that obviously the OK, since
32:10
these two markers are not found in the same layer in the
32:14
sediment, they were probably deposited at a time at at
32:19
different times. And if we simply calculate the
32:24
rate, the average rate of deposition over times and we get
32:28
approximately 7 centimetres per year.
32:31
So then this difference in height within the sediment would
32:35
amount to a difference in time of approximately 2 years.
32:38
And now we remember that Arthur Compton in 1945 said he would
32:43
need another two years before he would be able to purify
32:47
plutonium. So this actually fits quite
32:49
well. So it really seems that as soon
32:52
as the Americans had finally managed to purify plutonium,
32:56
that dumped some of it into this reservoir in order to fake for
33:01
the benefit of later researchers, the presence of
33:05
nuclear fallout from these bombs.
33:08
And they apparently had not expected somebody to undertake
33:12
such a detailed study as this Japanese group.
33:15
I have to note that the Japanese researchers, they don't draw the
33:20
same conclusions as I do. They see, they say that the
33:23
methods, the mechanism of separation is not understood.
33:28
That needs further investigation.
33:30
But I think the most straightforward explanation is
33:33
simply that these two substances were deposited at different time
33:38
points in time. OK, so these were right.
33:43
So the fallout evidence is clearly fake.
33:45
There's lots more fake physical evidence and I won't will only
33:49
go over one example to show what was done to illustrate what was
33:53
done. So if we have a chain reaction
33:56
going off in the air, what should be happening is that
33:59
uranium nuclei capture neutrons and the fission into two smaller
34:04
products, sometimes 3 and release more secondary neutrons,
34:09
right? And then some of these secondary
34:12
neutrons cause the fission of more nuclei of uranium, since
34:17
therefore we have a chain reaction.
34:19
But other neutrons, some of these neutrons, they escape the
34:22
centre of the detonation and strike the ground.
34:25
And on the ground they do two things.
34:28
They contribute to the radiation dose received by the people on
34:32
the ground, or they simply strike some soil and the atomic
34:38
nuclei and the soil, they can capture these neutrons and then
34:42
some of them will actually turn radioactive.
34:44
An example being cobalt 59 which is stable that can capture a
34:50
neutron becomes cobalt 60 and cobalt 60 is radioactive has a
34:54
half life of approximately 6 years so it can be measured many
34:59
years later. OK, now you can do this and you
35:03
can then from such measurements try to infer how much, how
35:09
intense the neutron radiation must have been at the time of
35:14
the bombing. And if you do this for different
35:17
isotopes, you have to apply different corrections for time,
35:22
right? Because the half lives differ,
35:25
you have to in your back calculation apply different
35:28
correction factors in order to arrive at the correct neutron,
35:33
those neutron Fluence at the time of the event.
35:37
In principle, the estimates from different isotopes, from
35:42
different radioactive isotopes induced by capture of neutrons,
35:47
they should all agree, but we see that they actually differ,
35:50
right quite considerably. We have three different
35:52
isotopes, cobalt 60 and europium 154 and 152.
35:59
They all differ from each other. But if we assume that maybe the
36:05
irradiation did not happen in 1945, but it happens three years
36:09
later or 3 1/2 years later, then we see that they almost
36:14
perfectly agree. OK, so I suspect that this
36:17
particular sample was fabricated in the lab sometime in 1948 or
36:23
maybe 1949, which is a similar time frame to the fakery going
36:27
on around the deposition of the fallout in Nagasaki.
36:32
So this is just one example in my book it is couple I discuss a
36:36
couple more examples of evidence that is just replete with
36:41
internal contradiction clearly indicating that it was fake.
36:46
OK, so this much about the physical evidence.
36:50
Now, if we conclude from our analysis of this physical
36:54
evidence that there were no nukes, then we have to wonder
36:58
how did all these cases of acute radiation sickness come about?
37:02
And these cases are quite numerous.
37:04
So you have lots of eyewitness reports.
37:07
You also have medical reports that describe people suffering
37:11
bone marrow failure. One symptom caused by bone
37:16
marrow failure is lack of blood, platelets, thrombocytes, and
37:21
this causes bleeding and as you can see, right, bleeding in the
37:24
skin. You can see in the young man on
37:27
the left who actually died on the day after this photograph
37:30
was taken. And also the hair follicles tend
37:34
to be quite susceptible to radiation.
37:36
So then this causes hair loss, as you can see in the boy on the
37:39
right. Other symptoms, right?
37:42
You also have a failure of the leukocytes, which are important
37:46
for defence against infections. So you also have infections,
37:50
high fever and so on. Often the infection affects the
37:54
oral cavity. OK, so how do we explain this?
38:00
The first thing is we can ask is could it be, after all explained
38:04
by radiation? If indeed the story of the
38:08
nuclear bombs were true, then what we should expect is a very
38:13
distinctive distribution of radiation sickness around the
38:18
hippocenter. You have very high doses between
38:20
the first kilometre from the hippocenter, so much so that
38:24
everybody who would be exposed to the radiation out in the open
38:30
without any shielding from building, they should be dead,
38:36
right? They should succumb sooner or
38:38
later to acute radiation sickness.
38:40
On the other hand, since the doors actually drops off with
38:43
distance quite steeply beyond 1 1/2 or two kilometres, you
38:48
actually should see a very little acute radiation sickness.
38:52
Beyond two kilometres, you should essentially see no
38:55
radiation sickness and no death. OK.
38:57
The question is, is this actually observed in reality?
39:02
And we see that it is not on the left hand side here in the
39:06
diagram right on the right hand side, do we see the
39:09
expectations? So everybody should be dead
39:12
within one kilometre of acute radiation sickness as long as he
39:17
was exposed out in the open. But we see that it's not the
39:20
case. So only about among those who
39:22
survived the first three weeks after the bombing, only 20%
39:31
actually died. So that's actually sorry this is
39:33
this is these numbers are illustrated here on the right
39:36
hand side of this diagram. So only about 20% died when in
39:40
fact all should have died. On the other hand, beyond two
39:43
kilometres, we should see neither symptoms of acute
39:47
radiation sickness nor death. And we see that both actually
39:51
continue beyond two kilometres. Particularly, symptoms of acute
39:56
radiation sickness are found in Hiroshima even beyond 4
40:00
kilometres from the hippocentres right.
40:04
And this is clearly a contradiction to the official
40:06
story. We also see the same effect in
40:11
later studies, right? So around 1960 the atomic what's
40:18
it called? The atomic Bomb Casualty
40:21
Commission in. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, right?
40:27
So they maintained 2 research outfits there.
40:30
So they tried to determine in hindsight the individual
40:34
radiation doses that each of the survivors would have received,
40:38
right? So they had first carried out
40:40
some physical experiments to determine the reach of nuclear
40:45
radiation in as a function of distance from the centre of the
40:50
donation. And then they carried out
40:54
interviews with all of these survivors and then they tried to
40:57
estimate for each of them how much radiation they would have
41:00
received. Right.
41:02
So what should result from such determinations is something
41:05
similar to the curve we see on the left.
41:08
That curve shows mortality among rhesus monkeys that were exposed
41:13
to a later nuclear test of some sort at different distances.
41:18
So what you see here is a very steep transition from survival
41:21
to death. Below a dose of four grey, all
41:26
the monkeys survive, and below above a dose of 6th grade they
41:29
all die essentially. And you should see a similarly
41:32
steep transition. We see acute radiation symptom
41:36
sickness symptoms, but you don't among these survivors, you see
41:41
that even as a dose at a dose of 6th grade, only about half of
41:46
them actually have symptoms of acute radiation sickness, right?
41:50
So the data points they scatter, they are all over the map.
41:52
So this means that the predictive power of the of this
41:57
model of the atomic donations just simply doesn't work.
42:02
One specific example is actually found in a very early report by
42:06
the Red Cross committee. We see it here from this report
42:14
from 1945. And this is a young man, you may
42:18
not be able to read it, but he actually experience typical
42:23
symptoms of radiation sickness such as bleeding, hair loss,
42:26
loss of white blood cells, high fever and so on.
42:28
And he succumbed, OK. And other key point is we have
42:33
acute radiation sickness not only among those who were in the
42:37
city at the time, but also among several 100 late entrants to
42:43
Hiroshima. OK, So the quote on the right is
42:46
from an official document. This reflects the official
42:51
story, right? So in a nuclear bomb detonation,
42:55
radiation should only be released and received for a few
42:59
seconds during determination itself.
43:02
OK, so everybody who was outside the city at the time should have
43:08
been protected from acute radiation sickness.
43:12
Nevertheless, we see that acute radiation sickness was quite
43:16
common among those people who spent several days near the
43:20
Hippo centre, probably to help with rescue and recovery.
43:22
So that's another clear contradiction to the official
43:25
story. Then we have anecdotal reports
43:30
of miraculous survival, right? We have an early report by an
43:35
American physician who was working at Osaka at the time and
43:39
he interviewed a patient who was who claimed to have been
43:44
practically directed to Hippo Centre right and survived it.
43:50
I mean, he should have died immediately due to the blast
43:53
force and due to the radiation, but he still managed to get
43:57
somehow to Osaka and to at least survive long enough to relate
44:01
his story to this physician. And then I really mentioned
44:05
those interviews and when the survivors in those interviews
44:10
claimed reported to have been very close to the centre of the
44:13
detonation, then they were simply brushed off and the
44:16
interviewers simply assumed that they were just telling a fantasy
44:20
tale. So this is how these how
44:23
objectively these scientific investigations were carried out.
44:29
Then we have Ashley Autism. He was in a surgeon from Yale.
44:35
He actually was heading up an investigative committee at the
44:42
at Hiroshima. He professed to have been
44:46
puzzled by some of these observations.
44:48
And when he reported his findings in 1956, he did so in
44:56
the nick of time because a short time later he was actually
44:59
killed in a plane crash in Colombia.
45:03
And several of his colleagues apparently also died by still
45:07
young, but they could not find out when exactly and where
45:10
exactly they were caught by their fate.
45:15
OK, so then the question is, if it wasn't bombs, then what it
45:18
was it? And it turns out we don't even
45:22
have to look very far. We can find plenty of eyewitness
45:25
testimony. People reported having inhaled
45:28
some poisonous gas, particularly here.
45:31
This schoolboy, he's a Toito. He began to lose his hair when
45:38
he breathed the gases when the bomb fell.
45:41
OK, so he breathed in some poisonous gas that made him lose
45:44
his hair. He actually died shortly after
45:47
writing this down of leukaemia. We also have Australian
45:51
journalist Wilfried Burchett, who managed to sneak into
45:56
Hiroshima. And even then he noticed a
46:00
sulfuric smell. And the Japanese he talked to
46:03
were talking to him about poisonous gas.
46:05
And they ascribed this poisonous gas to radioactivity, which of
46:09
course is not very sensible, but they probably were simply, they
46:13
simply had been told a bullshit story about radioactivity
46:17
somehow producing poisonous gas because the experience was so
46:23
commonplace that poisonous gas had been around and it had to be
46:26
explained in order to simply be denied, of course.
46:29
And the West, you were never told about poisonous gas at all.
46:33
OK, so here we have the most likely culprit.
46:36
This is sulphur mustard. Right Here you have the
46:38
structural formula. The sulphur atom is right in the
46:41
middle. You may know it's a battle gas
46:43
that was used by both sides in World War One.
46:47
It stinks. It smells like garlic, onions or
46:50
rotten eggs. And Even so, it's called a gas.
46:53
It has it's an oily fluid with a high boiling point and also in
46:56
the with a high density it can position the environment for
47:00
weeks and months. And this would explain both the
47:04
delayed effects on people who came to the city only afterwards
47:08
and it could also explain the observations by Burchett.
47:14
The sulphur mustard reacts with DNA and not going to go through
47:17
the steps here, but what it does it introduces cross links
47:21
between the two strands of adna molecule and these.
47:26
The reaction products are hard to repair for the cells.
47:29
So the damage to the DNA, Even so it's structurally different
47:34
from the damage done by radiation has similar biological
47:37
effects. The DNA damage ultimately
47:40
explains the biological effects on the bone marrow and other
47:46
rapidly proliferating tissues such as the intestinal mucous
47:50
membranes and for example hair follicles.
47:53
So this explains the similarities between the effects
47:57
of sulphur mustard and of radiation.
48:01
But there are also some differences.
48:06
Radiation is very penetrating, so it can hit the bone marrow
48:10
and the and the intestinal membranes for example without
48:17
doing much damage outwardly to the skin, for example.
48:21
But mustards of a mustard being a chemical has to be taken up
48:24
somehow either by inhalation or through across the skin, and it
48:28
will actually cause some damage to the skin and to the lung in
48:33
the process. And it also damages the
48:36
circulation and causes what's called capillary leak syndrome,
48:40
right. So that is actually exactly what
48:43
the name suggests. You have a leakiness of the
48:48
blood circulation. So the blood fluid seeps out of
48:51
the circulation into the tissues.
48:53
The tissues swell up, the patients of the years, of the
48:57
victims, they suffer extreme thirst.
49:00
And in keeping with this, in eyewitness testimony from both
49:04
cities, you'll find reports of people drinking from rivers,
49:08
pools and puddles, anything, any kind of water they would get.
49:12
And their bodies were swelled up grotesquely so that you couldn't
49:15
really tell men from women except by the length of the hair
49:20
and so on and so forth. Also, inhaled mustard gas will
49:23
cause toxic, toxic lung edoema. And this also jibes with with
49:30
eyewitness testimony from both cities.
49:34
And then we don't have a lot of pathology data, but that little
49:37
bit that we do have also gives clear indications.
49:41
Here we have a section, cross section of lung tissue from a
49:45
boy who died three days after the Hiroshima bombing.
49:48
And what we see here in this lung tissue are the alveoli.
49:52
These are the white airfield spaces and healthy lung tissue.
49:55
They should all be of identical, of similar size.
49:59
But what we see here is that some of the alveoli are grossly
50:02
inflated and others compressed, and this is due to the
50:06
obstruction, due to the chemical damage done by sulphur mustard
50:10
on the smallest bronchi. And that's a typical picture
50:14
that you find described in handbooks on the effects of
50:18
mustard gas. It is absolutely not typical for
50:22
damage of radiation. Radiation indeed does very
50:25
little acute damage, if any at all to lung tissue, at least at
50:29
doses that are immediately that are not immediately deadly.
50:34
Then we also have reports of peeling skin and mucous
50:38
membranes and bombing victims, right?
50:40
So you may know that mustard gas is a physician.
50:43
So it causes the skin to peel. That's very typical.
50:47
Not going to read these quotes to you and then we can turn to
50:51
the so called flash burns. OK, So what were these flash
50:55
burns? Here we have 3 victims, sorry,
50:58
we have two victims of napalm burns and we have one victim of
51:02
nuclear flash burn. So which one is different?
51:06
They are not different from each other.
51:08
They are all the same, right? In each case we have
51:11
circumscribed lesions, we have a have irregular boundaries, but
51:17
we have a clear transition, sudden transition from healthy
51:20
skin to the burnt tissue. If you have a burn caused by
51:26
light, what you would expect is that the burn is everywhere
51:30
where the light touched the skin.
51:32
So these kind of patterns are not expected, cannot be
51:35
reconciled with the idea that this damage was done by burns
51:40
and by by a flash of light. But on the other hand, napalm
51:44
burns fit the picture perfectly, and we also have similar reports
51:50
to match from the days of the bombing itself.
51:53
So here we have a witness report from the diary of a physician
51:59
from Hiroshima who describes a situation that should remind us
52:06
of the famous napalm girl picture that everyone has seen.
52:12
Then we also have the retinal burns.
52:15
OK, so an intense flash of light that enters the eye should be
52:22
focused on one spot on the retina and should cause some
52:27
sort of intense burn there. And this indeed happened in
52:31
later bomb tests. So what we see here in the
52:33
picture is the eye ground of AGI of an American soldier who had
52:38
looked at the flash of a later bomb test and you see this
52:41
volcano like structure in the middle lattices scar of the of
52:45
that burn. So then the question is how many
52:49
clinical case reports do we have from Hiroshima at Nagasaki?
52:52
And the number is exactly 0. There's not a single such report
52:56
in the literature, right? So we do have lots of
52:59
eyewitnesses who report having looked into the flash.
53:06
So we must assume some flash indeed happened.
53:08
But on the other hand, it was clearly not intense enough to
53:11
cause to 'cause these kinds of retinal burns, then the atomic
53:20
shadows. Sorry, I have to.
53:21
I have to take a sip of water. Then the atomic shadows.
53:34
We have eyewitness reports, right?
53:37
I already mentioned this reverse game, who also visited 2 cities
53:43
in early September. He had reported was that there
53:47
was nothing unusual to be seen in these two cities, right?
53:50
He for two days he searched the city, but he couldn't find
53:53
anything unusual. The shadows here, right?
53:56
The shadows of the posts of the bridge railing, they were to be
54:02
seen on a bridge within one kilometre of the epicentre
54:05
right. So somebody would probably have
54:08
pointed them out to him if they had already existed.
54:11
On the other hand, we find in the diary of Avril Lebo who came
54:17
to the city on October 13th, 13th, that's in many locations
54:24
in those cities, the shadows were to be found.
54:27
And he even arranged some sort of a Grand Tour to show his
54:30
guests around. OK.
54:33
And the bridge he mentions in this quote, he is the very one
54:35
in the picture. So what we can conclude from
54:38
this is that the special effects teams who created these shadows,
54:42
they must have been quite busy in September.
54:45
And if we look at this example in of this bridge in particular,
54:49
we can also compare the length of the shadows to the length of
54:54
the posts and compare this to expectation.
54:57
We know where the bridge is located relative to the HIPAA
55:00
centre. We know how high up in the air
55:03
the detonation is supposed to occur, and from that we can
55:05
calculate how long the shadows should have been.
55:08
And we see that the shadows should have been considerably
55:11
longer than they were actually found to be in reality.
55:17
So therefore, whatever these shadows are, I suspect this is
55:20
simply just paint that was spray painted onto the pavement.
55:24
But wherever they are, they don't match the story of the
55:28
atomic bombing. So what this means is some more
55:33
physical evidence that points the other way.
55:36
So then we have the beautiful cloud.
55:39
OK, so we can first wonder, why should there be any atomic
55:43
clouds at all? There shouldn't be, because
55:46
there's nothing that's burning up.
55:48
There is no release of any chemical products really in a
55:51
nuclear detonation. There's only heat being
55:53
released. So what we should see is
55:55
actually simply a flash, and if there were already any naturally
56:00
formed clouds in the vicinity, they should evaporate.
56:03
There shouldn't be a formation of new clouds, there should only
56:06
be an evaporation of any clouds already existing.
56:09
On top of that, the particular cloud in Hiroshima is described
56:13
by eyewitnesses as very colourful.
56:16
What is shown here in this quote, and what we can assume is
56:20
that probably coloured smoke bombs were used in the creation
56:23
of these clouds. And indeed there is one
56:26
eyewitness report from Hiroshima of a woman who had a purple
56:32
coloured smoke bomb going up in her living room.
56:36
So more figury then we can wonder overall how was it done.
56:43
So I already mentioned that some sort of flash was created.
56:46
The cloud was created. The flash may have been
56:49
magnesium flash bombs, photo flash bombs.
56:53
That's hard to reconstruct from the very limited evidence.
56:56
Might also have been a so called thermobaric weapons.
57:00
Then we have napalm burns and eyewitness testimony suggests
57:05
that napalm bombs were detonated high up above the city and that
57:09
the burning napalm gobs, they were simply raining down on the
57:13
city. I suppose the sulphur mastered
57:16
was delivered in the same way. So also the bombs were set to go
57:20
off within that cloud. So the cloud was simply a trick,
57:24
it was a smokescreen in effect, right, To hide all the entire
57:28
trickery that was gone on that was going on later.
57:32
Then we have the black grain to consider.
57:35
I suppose this was simply reactor waste and the black
57:40
grain is described, but eyewitnesses is oily.
57:45
So I think that they somehow contrived to dissolve the
57:50
reactor waste and some oily matrix and they dispersed that
57:54
this this oily fluid on the onto the ground.
57:59
And to hide this dispersal of this black rain, they also made
58:03
some watery rain. So there was actually a
58:05
substantial volume of regular watery rain also coming down at
58:08
the same time. And I think that watery rain was
58:11
intended to disguise the black oily rain.
58:17
Now, the oily rain was not supposed to be black.
58:20
It simply turned black because the oil droplets picked up soot
58:24
on the way down through these, through the clouds from the
58:27
burning city. So I think that this was sort of
58:32
backfired on them. They tried to disguise the
58:36
dispersal of reactor waste, but they actually made it quite
58:39
conspicuous. Of course, the proper
58:40
explanation hasn't been provided until today.
58:45
OK, so then another point is after the bombings had been
58:52
staged, the aftermath had to be managed in order to prevent the
58:55
truth from coming out right? See particularly the widespread
59:00
experience of poison gas was simply blamed on the on the
59:05
radioactivity. I even found quoted in one
59:08
scientific report the term atom bomb gas.
59:13
So even the medical community was deceived into believing that
59:17
atomic bombs somehow produced harmful gas.
59:22
Atomic shadows were spray painted.
59:23
We have already covered that. And then another important point
59:27
is very heavy censorship of medical research.
59:30
So very little medical data came out, particularly in the first
59:35
couple of years, but that little bit that did come out already
59:39
contains some interesting findings.
59:42
For example, those napalm burns that were passed off as flash
59:49
burns. Then another point is if it
59:53
these bombings were staged, however, the Japanese
59:55
authorities deceived. I mean, it's one thing to
59:58
deceive the population. But another thing to deceive the
1:00:01
government, which has it's this at its disposal, military
1:00:06
experts, medical experts, physical experts and so on.
1:00:10
What I believe is that the Japanese were not deceived at
1:00:13
all. I think they were actually
1:00:16
coerced into collaborating with staging these bombings.
1:00:21
OK, there are several signs to indicate that indeed they were
1:00:27
not deceived. For example, they didn't trigger
1:00:30
an air alarm, but there must have been many American
1:00:33
aeroplanes in the air to deliver all this of various kinds of
1:00:37
orders we have discussed. There is an official report by
1:00:42
the US government estimating that in Hiroshima, some 200
1:00:46
planes, even more than that would have been needed, that
1:00:50
would have delivered conventional explosives and
1:00:53
incendiaries in order to achieve the observed extent of
1:00:56
destruction. The Japanese would have seen
1:00:59
those planes in the air and they should have triggered an air
1:01:02
alarm, but it didn't occur. Indeed, they actually cancelled
1:01:06
an air alarm in Rashima that had been enforced just a few minutes
1:01:10
before the actual bombing occurred.
1:01:13
And this there are more indications that indeed the
1:01:16
Japanese were not deceived. So then the question is, how
1:01:19
were they coerced into colluding?
1:01:22
We already have discussed the firebombing campaign, right?
1:01:25
Beginning in March 1945, Tokyo was bombed first and then every
1:01:32
major and mid sized city in Japan was destroyed.
1:01:36
After that, Japan depended on food import and their military
1:01:42
situation getting ever more desperate prevented them from
1:01:45
receiving these supplies. And the Russians were obviously
1:01:49
preparing to enter into the war. Indeed, they did enter on the
1:01:53
same day as the Nagasaki bombing.
1:01:55
And one might also speculated some of the atrocities that were
1:02:00
committed by the Americans in Germany, for example, the
1:02:03
Dresden bombing, but also, for example, the Crime Reason desk
1:02:09
death camps in which according to James Buck, approximately
1:02:13
1,000,000 soldiers, prisoners were stabbed to death.
1:02:19
That these were also stage the disease were also carried out in
1:02:24
order to send a message to the Japanese, right?
1:02:27
That they better go along with staging these nuclear bombings
1:02:30
because otherwise they would suffer an even worse fate.
1:02:35
OK, then we might wonder why was it done?
1:02:37
And again, we don't really have to be super sluices in order to
1:02:42
find out why. Because the nuclear scare
1:02:45
propaganda which began immediately afterwards, actually
1:02:48
tips us off. Tips us off.
1:02:51
We have here a propaganda booklet to which very
1:02:54
illustrious scientists contributed.
1:02:57
Einstein himself see that Wigner, Hans Bader and the title
1:03:05
already gives the game away. One world or none.
1:03:08
And Leo, See that actually spelled it out for us.
1:03:11
We need a world government in order to save the world from
1:03:15
nuclear destruction. This is what it was about.
1:03:18
It was a terror attack. It was intended to scare the
1:03:23
world populace into willingly giving up for their national
1:03:27
sovereignties and submitting to a new and benevolent world
1:03:31
government and the people who took it upon themselves to
1:03:39
further spread this message in the years afterwards.
1:03:43
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist.
1:03:46
They have in the meantime also adopted very many other worthy
1:03:50
causes, right? They were on top of the COVID
1:03:54
agenda, they pushed climate change and so on.
1:03:57
And they have this world famous doomsday clock which is
1:04:01
perennially stuck at a couple of seconds or minutes to midnight,
1:04:08
right? So here you see two true
1:04:09
scientists obviously next to their chariot doomsday clock.
1:04:13
You can also buy an entire book about the doomsday clock at 75
1:04:18
saying is even a broken clock is right twice a day.
1:04:22
But this doomsday clock seems to be the exception.
1:04:25
So even at 75 years, it has never been right even once.
1:04:30
Then we have testimony by Verna Heisenberg on 1st learning of
1:04:37
the Hiroshima bombing. She said it is nothing got, it's
1:04:40
got nothing to do with atoms. OK.
1:04:42
Heisenberg at the time was actually interned together with
1:04:45
the entire elite of the German nuclear physics in England and
1:04:52
their reaction to the news of the Hiroshima bombing was
1:04:56
carefully recorded. The question is why?
1:04:59
Why did they intern these people at the time?
1:05:02
It was already clear at the time that Germany, after all, had not
1:05:05
pursued its own atomic bomb programme.
1:05:09
So there was really nothing to be learned from these people.
1:05:12
Or was there, I suspect, but cannot prove, that the reason
1:05:16
for in turning these people into listening in on their
1:05:19
conversations on the atomic bombs, on supposed atomic bombs,
1:05:23
was that they just might come up with a clear cut argument for
1:05:29
why these stories had to be wrong, had to be false.
1:05:33
And I think if they had come up with such an argument, that
1:05:36
would probably have been it for them.
1:05:38
So lucky for them, they didn't really persevere with this
1:05:42
initial reaction, but later on became persuaded that after all
1:05:46
the atomic bombing story may have been true.
1:05:49
And so therefore, they were actually released in January of
1:05:52
1946. OK, we have already discussed
1:05:55
this book by Akhil Nakatani. So I would suggest that you look
1:06:00
at it. The problem is nowadays you
1:06:02
can't find it anymore on Amazon. So you would have to track it
1:06:05
down somehow second hand. And finally, another plug for my
1:06:10
own book. Again, you can find it for free
1:06:13
in electronic format, or you can buy a print copy.
1:06:18
And in this book I go over everything at greater depths.
1:06:21
I discuss additional medical and physical findings which further
1:06:25
support the conclusions I have presented here.
1:06:28
Thank you very much. Why did only let's just assume
1:06:33
that the atomic bombs were real. Why did the US only choose two
1:06:37
cities? You know why?
1:06:39
Why was Tokyo firebombed in the same year?
1:06:41
And why was Dresden? I mean, let's be honest, right?
1:06:44
I mean, Germany was like the ultimate enemy of the Allies.
1:06:48
No nuclear bombs dropped on Germany well, but only these two
1:06:51
cities in Japan well. The official story is that they
1:06:54
got the atomic bombs to work only just in time, right?
1:06:58
So the first atomic test is supposed to have been carried
1:07:01
out in July of 1945. By that time, Germany had
1:07:06
already capitulated, so it was already out of the war, and
1:07:10
Japan then capitalated shortly after, right?
1:07:13
So the story as it's told is that Japan refused to surrender
1:07:19
and the Americans were on the verge of invading the country,
1:07:24
and this would have entailed lots more additional losses.
1:07:28
So then they tried the atomic bombs in order to persuade Japan
1:07:31
to give up. And then Japan actually did give
1:07:35
up in the end. OK, so at the superficial level,
1:07:39
the story, the story is believable.
1:07:46
I've looked at photographs of. Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki
1:07:53
and they all look very similar. Well, that's that's what
1:07:57
Dysversky also said, right? He also says that he that
1:08:05
Hiroshima and Nagasaki really didn't visibly distinguish
1:08:09
themselves in any way, so there was no reason to assume that
1:08:12
anything special had occurred in those cities.
1:08:15
But that's only the directly visible signs.
1:08:17
So I think that for example, the so called radiation sickness,
1:08:20
that is clearly different, right?
1:08:22
So there must have been something more than just fire
1:08:26
bombing in the end. Yes, but what I mean is a lot of
1:08:32
the concrete structures in all three other cities remain.
1:08:36
That is true, That is correct. So it seems that in Germany, I
1:08:40
mean, Germany had mostly stone structures here, fairly solid
1:08:45
western construction, right. So you had there was a need for
1:08:50
breaking through those structures.
1:08:52
So the Allies actually used lots of explosives in their in their
1:08:58
bombing campaigns. Whereas in Japan you had largely
1:09:02
buildings of light wooden construction.
1:09:05
And so they used mostly incendiaries in those cities.
1:09:08
They did also use some sort of explosives in Hiroshima, for
1:09:12
example. So there are reports of houses
1:09:15
having immediately collapsed after some added air bursts and
1:09:19
this sort of thing. So some explosives were used as
1:09:24
well, but obviously these explosives were not any stronger
1:09:29
than those used in other places. The Manhattan Project famously
1:09:35
had hundreds of thousands of people working on it.
1:09:38
Yes. What would they?
1:09:40
What were they working on? And were they that many people?
1:09:43
I have no idea whether I have honestly, I have really not
1:09:45
looked into that question whether how many people were
1:09:48
really employed there. I mean, most of them must have
1:09:54
been working some sort of bullshit jobs.
1:09:56
So probably if they were even employed, I suspect these lists
1:10:04
may have been fictitious and the money might seem the money for
1:10:07
the salaries might simply have been stolen.
1:10:10
Oppenheimer and his friends at Los Alamos, I mean, they may
1:10:14
have done some calculations, but not a lot more.
1:10:16
They may have done some small scale experiments, for example,
1:10:19
the one which I initially mentioned carried out by Robert
1:10:22
Wilson. But the crucial fact is they
1:10:25
simply had no nuclear fuel from which to assemble any kind of
1:10:30
nuclear bomb. So all their work was
1:10:33
essentially fictitious, right? The real, the real physical work
1:10:43
was apparently mostly done in in Chicago, University of Chicago.
1:10:48
So this is where the first reactors were built by Enrico
1:10:51
Fermi and they apparently also had very capable chemist there
1:10:56
who would purify all manner of nuclear fission products from
1:11:03
the reactor material from Fermis reactors.
1:11:05
And then this was used again also in Chicago in animal
1:11:09
experiments. So they have detailed animal
1:11:12
experiments to study every different purified fission
1:11:15
products and its biological effects on experimental animals.
1:11:19
They did that. It also tested in parallel,
1:11:26
interestingly enough, the effects of mustard gas on those
1:11:29
same animals, right? Or on other animals of the same
1:11:32
species. They published a report on it.
1:11:36
The findings with the various fission products are carefully
1:11:42
documented in that report. The findings with mustard gas
1:11:46
are left out from the report, and no mention is made of the
1:11:50
atomic bombings. Even so, this report was
1:11:53
published only in 1948, I think it was.
1:11:55
It was at 49. So Even so, the atomic bombings
1:12:00
had supposedly really occurred. There is absolutely no mention
1:12:03
of them, but no mention. There's no mention.
1:12:06
There's no attempt to correlate these experimental findings with
1:12:10
observations from the two cities, which is quite striking
1:12:14
I would say. Most, if not all of the photos
1:12:18
that we see of the famous mushroom cloud were given to us
1:12:23
by the Allies, not by the Japanese.
1:12:25
And I've tried finding photos from Japanese photographers and
1:12:31
there are very few and they look very different.
1:12:34
Yes. Well, yes, I don't know how
1:12:42
genuine the photos of those mushrooms cloud really are.
1:12:47
Clouds really are that are given to us by the by the allies.
1:12:50
I have no trust in any in any of the photographic records, in any
1:12:54
of the data and information they gave us.
1:12:57
I think what the Japanese photographers caught was simply
1:13:02
the smoke clouds from the burning cities, right?
1:13:05
So it was in about a couple of minutes, 1/2 an hour of the
1:13:08
bombings, both cities were aflame and there was huge big
1:13:13
smoke plumes rising from those cities.
1:13:15
And I think that's what you find in the Japanese imagery.
1:13:20
But the eyewitness testimonies report really all in unison that
1:13:27
these smoke clouds or these mushroom clouds, they already
1:13:32
formed at the very beginning, within the very first minute of
1:13:36
the attack essentially. So it's not this wasn't all.
1:13:40
So these, these the smoke plumes of the burning cities, they were
1:13:44
certainly real, but this was not all right.
1:13:47
I mean, the bossy early formation of the mushroom clouds
1:13:51
and then also the description of those clouds as colourful and so
1:13:54
on, some other special elements clearly show that there was
1:13:59
something more than just the just the burning city.
1:14:02
So this was part of the fireworks, let's call it that,
1:14:08
right? So I think very elaborate
1:14:09
fireworks were used to to stage those those bombings.
1:14:14
And the formation very early on of these mushroom clouds was
1:14:19
part of it. And I think it was simply these
1:14:21
mushroom clouds were simply attended as smokescreens in
1:14:25
order to conceal from the people on the ground what was really
1:14:28
going on. Was bikini at all significant in
1:14:33
any way? Well, in Bikini, on Bikini, the
1:14:41
bomb tests, several bomb tests were supposed to, I think two of
1:14:44
them were supposed to have been held in 1946.
1:14:50
That would still be before the Manhattan Projects would have
1:14:58
been able to purify plutonium. Nevertheless, those bomb tests
1:15:01
were supposed to have been carried out with plutonium also,
1:15:04
So one must assume that these tests are also fake.
1:15:07
And the image imagery looks pretty fake as well.
1:15:11
I mean, there's lots of fake looking imagery from later bomb
1:15:16
tests. So it's very difficult to know
1:15:17
what exactly went on in these went on in these bomb tests
1:15:21
later times. On the other hand, something
1:15:23
must have been been done there. I think the fallout is real
1:15:26
enough. I think many investigators have
1:15:31
confirmed independently from each other the presence of
1:15:35
efficient products in soil samples from all over the world.
1:15:39
And I guess this would be very difficult to fake.
1:15:42
And unless all of these people are in on the on the deception,
1:15:48
I think one has to conclude that the fallout is real.
1:15:52
Well, Speaking of people being in on it.
1:15:56
Yeah. He would have been in on it in
1:16:00
terms of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, there's the famous Enola Gay and
1:16:04
the pilot and his small crew that were quoted multiple times.
1:16:12
How many? I mean, do you think that the
1:16:13
the amount of people involved at the top would have been very
1:16:16
small? I think that I cannot put a real
1:16:22
number to it, but I think only overall a small minority of all
1:16:27
people working within the Manhattan Project in the US
1:16:30
military would have been in on it to at least entirely, right.
1:16:35
I mean, probably the the pilot and his crew, they would have
1:16:39
known that it was obviously fake, right, That they were not
1:16:42
even delivering any, any particular audit.
1:16:45
I also actually, I can't track it down right now, but I found a
1:16:49
picture of this crew standing next to their, you know, like a
1:16:54
plane and grinning as if they were just being on a very big
1:16:59
joke somehow, you know, I mean, not that they don't look like
1:17:01
people on a mission that is crucial, possibly dangerous,
1:17:07
might decide the war. They would you would, you would
1:17:10
expect a facial expression of some seriousness, a little grim
1:17:14
faces. They were just just standing
1:17:16
there and grinning as if there is just some sort of festivity
1:17:20
in progress, you know, So it's, it's, it's a bit odd then among
1:17:27
the scientists, I think. I mean, I, I talked about, I
1:17:30
talked about the meeting on May 31st, 1945.
1:17:34
You have the top tier of the scientists participating in the
1:17:42
project there. I think every one of the
1:17:44
scientists there would have known what the real state of
1:17:48
affairs was because they all kept silent.
1:17:51
As Compton told the fib of uranium bombs being in
1:17:58
production. Nobody objected to that.
1:18:01
Leslie Groves themselves would have known it.
1:18:03
On the other hand, I think this story about the uranium bombs
1:18:07
being in production was probably told to deceive some of the
1:18:11
military officers and politicians in attendance.
1:18:15
I think they were being kept on the dark, in the dark on
1:18:17
purpose. I'm not even sure Truman himself
1:18:21
knew what was going on. I suspect Truman himself was
1:18:24
deceived as to the reality of the of the bombings.
1:18:28
I think he believed he was led to believe that he was indeed
1:18:32
ordering atomic bombings and that these bombings were at
1:18:35
least atomic, at least at the time.
1:18:37
I think he was deceived about it, but that's pretty much
1:18:42
conjecture. That's I think it fits better to
1:18:45
the to his attitude displayed here and there then the
1:18:50
opposite. Why has the Japanese government
1:18:53
not said anything? Well, they were taught better
1:18:59
not to tell anything about it. I think that they were really
1:19:04
mercifully threatened and blackmailed.
1:19:07
I think they really didn't want to go along with it, but in the
1:19:10
end they saw no other way. I think that the entire
1:19:13
conventional bombing campaign of the year 1945 was really needed
1:19:17
to beat them into submission. And they only really relented
1:19:21
when it became obvious that, you know, sorry that the Soviet
1:19:27
Union would join the war, which they did anyway in the end,
1:19:31
right? Because Japan had at the time
1:19:33
occupied Manchuria and northern China, the Japanese forces,
1:19:38
their land forces, they had already been hollowed out.
1:19:42
They were in no position to offer resistance to the massive
1:19:45
onslaught of the of the Soviet forces.
1:19:50
The Japanese had also taken a significant number of settlers
1:19:55
across so civilian. I'm not sure it's extra about
1:19:58
the exact number, but it was more than 1,000,000 Japanese
1:20:00
civilians. They actually had settled in
1:20:02
Manchuria and when? The Japanese defence collapsed
1:20:07
within days really. They actually suffered A grim
1:20:10
fate. So many of them were were killed
1:20:13
or raped, this sort of thing, you know.
1:20:15
So they suffered a very grim face.
1:20:17
So the Japanese really only gave up and relented and agreed to go
1:20:22
along with it, I believe a short time before the bombings
1:20:27
actually were staged. And I guess these threats didn't
1:20:35
end. I guess that if the Japanese
1:20:37
government were ever to acknowledge the truth of or is
1:20:42
it the truth, I think they would still suffer punishment even
1:20:45
today. How can I get your book?
1:20:48
Or you can find it on lulu.com. You can also find it on
1:20:53
Amazon.com. If you simply look for the title
1:20:56
Hiroshima Revisited, you should be able to find it and you can
1:21:00
find the the electronic version free on my website at empalma
1:21:06
dot heresy dot IAS and you can find it also on archive.org.
1:21:13
All right. On that note, Michael Palmer,
1:21:15
thank you for joining me in the trenches.
1:21:16
OK. Thank you for the opportunity.
1:21:19
Enjoy the conversation. Thank you very much.