This is a new subject to me [written March 2011] as it is to almost everyone
- only about a year ago I looked at Jesse's video; after that I found Roger Desjardins and perhaps others maybe preceded him. My 'revisionist' views generally have been formed by the Russell Tribunal on the Vietnam War, and then, much later, revisionism in biology, Shakespeare, some physics topics, First World War, then Second World War, Jews, the existence or not of Jesus, 9/11, Korean War, paper money and its effects, and very many other topics.
I want to summarise the present state of 'nuke revisionism' both for people inclined to believe in it, and sceptics. The only assumption I'm making is that you have an interest in truth (and probably a dislike of liars and disinformants). Nuclear science.
Doubts over nukes cast doubts over much of the field of physics. My best guess is that most physics into the 1920s was reliable - I don't think Gibbs, Rutherford, Thomson, Bragg etc got things wrong about thermodynamics, the nucleus, electrons, crystallography, isotopes. (However, I have doubts about superfluidity, phases of water, the actual construction of atoms, and relativity). The doubts concern e.g.
(i) Radiation and its dangers.
There seems to be a confusion over X Rays (which can be generated indefinitely) and alpha, beta, gamma rays (which self-terminate). E.g. There's a well-known photo of a hand of a radiographer looking something like a claw - which seems to be a result of X-rays. One chunk of radioactive material can (I think) only generate a certain number of neutrons - and these will tend to go straight through anything, not being charged. **Has radiation been exaggerated?**(ii) Relativity
may have suggested the idea of huge emission of energy. I my opinion (and I won't explain why, here) relativity is a phoney, probably a Jewish fraud, in fact. **Relativity - fraud?**(iii) The whole background
- radium, uranium, various isotopes, decay series ending typically with lead, the structure of the sun - is thrown into doubt and however unlikely it may seem, the roots ought to be looked at. The original paper which supposedly prompted Einstein to advise the then-US president seems to not support the idea that vast energy could be obtained.(iv) Nuclear tests
. A lot of footage has been released and despite being 'sanitised' shows obvious fakery. (There are also DVDs of the birthday year type, Pathe News etc, which sometimes include supposed weapon tests). These could be looked at, and note that France, China, and suppodedly India, Pakistan have test footage. History - then and now.
(iv) I checked Robert Jungk's book 'Brighter than a Thousand Suns'
(recommended reading when I went to university; though I never read it then). There have been a few subsequent books, retailing much the same sort of material. These all assume the Germans were the worst people on earth, therefore nuclear weapon research was certainly justified; the usual cold war stuff - e.g. that Stalin was independent of the USA, which of course misses out the whole Jewish dimension of the USSR; that the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer, Goldmann Sachs, etc etc were all above board; that Trinity etc were as presented.
In fact of course Jews ran the Soviet Union, and the technology was western, often just copied, more or less in secret; Jews and technicians generally were somewhat in common
(and liable to similar penalties for failure); the Space Race, or at least moon landings, are well known now to have been faked; the money for Manhattan wasn't necessarily as great as for Chrysler and radar - thus the figures appear hopelessly buried. It's also known that Hitler didn't want war with Britain, and was forced into it by Churchill.
has to be considered; e.g. my personal best guess is that Vanunu was a plant, intended to unofficially suggest Israel had nukes, without legally committing Israel. I went to a meeting by the 'Free Vanunu' committee, at the House of Commons, and saw Frank Barnaby and others discussing the issue; or appearing to. I therefore suspect his 'Oxford Group' may be a phoney. The smaller picture is Hiroshima and Nagasaki
, and 'Daniel' as far as I know has done most work in burrowing into this and exposing anomalies - such as problems with photos of the supposed bombs - their supposed mass being too great, and their being manhandleable, and not like the model in Hiroshima Museum.
There are related problems with Trinity - the bomb supposedly was shipped to Hiroshima (i.e. by ship - risky?) BEFORE the thing was even tested. Moreover the ship on return was torpedoed (as in 'Jaws') - but left for I think two days; suggesting to me a deliberate attempt to kill off sailors who maybe had worked out what was happening.
This of course implies the bombings from Mariana (I think that's the name) were multiple or otherwise not the official story.
I have a book (ed. Osada) on Japanese schoolkids' recollections of 1945, the book being published 1955 ish; this seems to post date the US censorship, and the stories are not compatible with a nuclear blast. (E.g. a girl 600 yards from the epicentre - she opened the door and saw houses burning). Similarly the photo evidence - e.g. supposed shadow of one person (what about all the others walking around?) - is the bitty kind of thing familiar from 'Holocaust' 'evidence'. Nuclear Power.
This is RD's province really; he maintains that dumploads are needed to even out electricity demand - and this certainly appears to be true; and that so-called nuclear power stations are just dumploads - in effect, huge electric kettles making hot water or steam. He also has a theory involving stirling engines, which I haven't understood.
Note added Dec 2015: Adam Hart-Davis in 'The McCurdy Lecture, 23 Oct 2003, said '.. because of their quietness, the Victorians used them [Stirling engines] to drive their church organs and the Swedish Navy used them [purpose(s) unstated] in their submarines. ...'
If he's right, expect - nowhere is any country dependent on nuclear power; nuclear subs are just a fake using more conventional engines; China is building coal fired power stations because they know nuclear power doesn't work; there must be a lot of anomalies - as with the current Japanese accident; if there's an emergency power outage, nuclear power never takes up the slack; the distribution of 'nuclear power plants' is consistent with dumpload distribution; net production of electricity is accounted for entirely by other supplies, including hydroelectricity. NB Israeli companies appear to 'maintain' all these things.
This site should consider these issues, preferably politely. There must be things we haven't yet thought of. Incidentally I'd personally like to include SOME discussions on new weaponry and new power sources - if nukes are a fantasy, we're back to more conventional stuff.IF YOU DON'T MIND CONTROVERSY, PUT LINK TO THIS SITE IN YOUR BLOG/ FACEBOOK/ TWITTER/ WEBSITE/ BIOGRAPHY/ DIARY. www.big-lies.org -Thanks.