No Atom Bombs Were Dropped on Japan

Michael Palmer examines the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, arguing that no nuclear bombs were used. Instead, he suggests conventional weapons and chemicals, such as mustard gas, were deployed. Drawing on official documents and eyewitness accounts, Palmer challenges the accepted narrative, highlighting inconsistencies in reports of radiation sickness. He proposes the bombings may have been staged, with propaganda influencing public perception. The analysis also explores the political motives and historical context, questioning whether a cover-up took place.https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/no-atomic-bombs-were-dropped-on-japan

Episode Transcript

(00:38):
Michael Palmer, thank you for joining me in the Trenches.
What is your background? Oh, I'm a medical doctor by
training. So I got my training in Germany
where I grew up, and after doingresearch in microbiology and
biochemistry for a decade at Mindt University with Sutarid

(01:00):
Bhakti, I went to North America and ended up in the year 2001 at
the University of Waterloo in the chemistry department where I
taught biochemistry, did research on biochemistry for two
decades and in 2022 I was sackedthere because I refused to take

(01:20):
the poisonous COVID shot. And since then I have been
amusing myself at home and writing stuff and.
The COVID era significantly changed the paradigms of so many
people, including myself. It was a good thing, wasn't it,
In many. Ways, Yeah, it was.
I mean, I had been, let's say, half a week to a few things

(01:43):
before that, but COVID actually did managed to shock me.
I mean, one way in which it shocked me was really that I
fully realised how difficult it is for many people to even look
at inconvenient facts and draw the obvious and appropriate
conclusions, even if those are not inherently difficult from a

(02:04):
scientific or logical point of view.
Just simply they seem to block them out because they are
inconvenient, they don't fit theworld view, they would be
upsetting if fully taken on board.
And so therefore they are simplyrefused, they are blocked out.
And that I didn't really understand this, the extent of

(02:28):
this problem before, I must say.So in COVID, in the COVID era, I
came to realise how many people are affected by it.
But on the other hand, obviouslythere was a substantial minority
of people, let's say, that actually did wake up and during
this era and realised that the deceptions went a lot deeper and

(02:50):
further than just covered alone.What is the central hypothesis
here? OK.
So I'm concerned specifically with the atomic bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I mean, there was also a very
substantial conventional bombingcampaign beginning with a large
raid on Tokyo in March 1945. It had started before that, but

(03:11):
this was the first really large scale conventional attack.
So I am specifically concerned with the bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki and the conclusion that I reached during my
research. I looked into this topic for
about two years and wrote a bookon it, and the conclusion is

(03:33):
that there were no nuclear bombs, no atomic bombs in either
city. On the other hand, these were
not just simply regular fire bombings, but instead the
Americans indeed tried to fake the appearance of two atomic
bombings of nuclear detonations.And there is both physical

(03:54):
evidence and medical evidence that points to this conclusion,
both that there were no true atomic bombings, but also that
the Americans did try to fake the appearance of such bombings.
As I say here on the title slideright, I already mentioned that
the Americans tried to fake the appearance of atomic bombings.

(04:18):
And two key ingredients of this fakery were napal and mustard
gas, right? Both were used in staging these
attacks. Napalm had been used also in the
fire bombings. It was indeed the most widely
used incendiary in those conventional fire bombings.

(04:39):
But the use of napalm was a little bit disguised in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think.And mustard gas was a specific
ingredient that was used to create the so called radiation
sickness. Mustard gas has effects that are
similar to true radiation, and Ithink there's pretty good

(05:03):
evidence that indeed this was used instead of radioactivity or
nuclear radiation. Why do you think, Michael, that
so few people understand this particular argument?
Well, I mean, the the narrative has been jumped into our heads

(05:26):
from very early on. So I think most people just
simply, they don't even listen to the possibility.
I think they just shut off immediately if you suggest to
them that this might be another fake story.
So that's the first point. I must say I have not come
across any other books that specifically postulate the use

(05:49):
of mustard gas in Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
I have seen books that claim that both cities were simply
firebombed in the same way that the other cities that are in in
Japan were firebombed. And I think that really is not
correct. I think that writes roughshod
over a lot of eyewitness evidence and also over physical

(06:11):
and medical evidence. And indeed, if you look at the
medical and physical evidence ina superficial sort of way, or
you look only at the small segment of it, you might
persuade yourself that after all, there must have been atomic
bombs. So you really have to look
closely and you have to look at the entire picture in order to
understand that this evidence was indeed staged and faked.

(06:34):
And I think I will, yes. Yeah, go ahead.
There is that that that Japaneseengineer, I I can't remember his
name now, but. But he wrote he.
Didn't he? Didn't say the same as you, but
he did say that there was no evidence of an atomic bomb.
That's correct. Yeah.
So this also, I think you mean Akio Nagatani, he wrote OK.

(06:57):
So I think that this is a pen name.
And from the writing style whereyou get, I get the impression
that he's an American. Other than that, OK.
Other than that, I also do get the impression that his

(07:17):
qualifications are indeed real. So he claims to be an expert in
applied mathematics, and I see nothing in his writing style and
in his conclusions that contradicts that claim that I
think that is real. I think he simply took a pen
name, a Japanese pen name, in order to protect his identity.
So that's it. But he indeed, he claims, it's

(07:38):
quite interesting actually. So he claims to have carried out
computer simulations, which is what an applied mathematician
would do. That simulates the time course
of a nuclear chain reaction inside a bomb.
What he concludes is, as far as I can understand his somewhat

(07:58):
incomplete description of those simulations, is that the change
reaction simply proceeds too slow.
If it is too slow right, then the energy is released not quite
fast enough. So what happens is that before
the chain reaction has envelopedenough of the nuclear fuel, it

(08:22):
the critical mass is already blown apart.
So the chain reaction can only continue as long as the critical
mass stays together. And if the energy is released in
a somewhat successive fashion right in the middle of the, the
material that is affected by it heats up and then things simply

(08:44):
blow apart and then the the detonation sort of fizzles.
So that means without a strong containment, you cannot create a
strong detonation. That seems to be that.
That seems to be his conclusion.And he apparently has done this

(09:05):
separately, both for the uraniumbomb supposedly used in
Hiroshima and for the plutonium bomb supposedly used in
Nagasaki. And he therefore concludes that
these bombs could not have worked.
He takes it further and says that no atomic bombs or no
atomic, yeah, no nuclear weaponscould work at all at any time.

(09:32):
That may be so, but I cannot really judge this.
I'm not an engineer, a nuclear engineer, this sort of thing by
training, and I don't have enough insight into how general
these conclusions are really applicable.
So I leave that up to others. I really hope that at some point

(09:52):
a nuclear physicist or a nuclearchemist will do a detailed
analysis of all the fallout leftbehind by the nuclear test in
later time periods and figure out what will depend on there.
So I do think that some sort of nuclear detonations were staged.
Now, if I were tasked, if I wereasked to fake nuclear bomb test,

(10:18):
what I would propose to do, I couldn't do it myself, but what
I would propose to do is to simply build an underground
reactor which is strong containment, and then just
simply let it go critical just the same way that nuclear, that
that, that Chernobyl, that the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl
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
matter whether it's fast or slow, it will continue on
building until the pressure inside the thing gets too high
and the containment blows up. So the strength of the
detonation would then be limitednot by not so much by the amount
of nuclear fuel inside it, but by the strength of the

(11:02):
containment. And that's what I suspect was
done at least in some of the later nuclear tests.
So yeah, I already commented on the use of mustard gas, so I
don't think I need to repeat this.
So then we can go on. As mentioned, many listen,
listeners may disbelieve the entire idea and will not be

(11:23):
willing to give it much time at all.
So therefore I want to start offwith some official documents
from the Manhattan Project, which themselves plainly
contradict the official narrative.
So we start with a quick summaryof the official story.
There was supposed to have been three nuclear detonations during
the year 1945. First was the bomb test on July

(11:47):
16th, 1945. This is said to have been a
plutonium bomb. And then the next one was the
bomb supposed to drop the Hiroshima on August 6th.
And then three days after that, the plutonium bomb on Nagasaki
was stopped. So interestingly enough, the
uranium bomb supposed to use Hiroshima was never tested even

(12:10):
once. So the scientific genius of the
Manhattan Project allegedly justknew it would work and that no
test would be necessary. That already sounds a little bit
like something out of Hollywood and not so much out of real
life. But OK, let's compare the story
to some official documents. Here we have Arthur Compton,

(12:31):
physics novelist who was the head of the physics division of
the Manhattan Project, and he was particularly keen on
developing the plutonium bomb technology and spoke on this
topic at a secret meeting on May31st, 1945.
And you actually can find the protocol of that meeting on the
Internet. And what he says here at the

(12:54):
meeting is that plutonium had not yet been purified.
It would take two more years from that date, from May 45, to
purify plutonium, and then aboutone more year to obtain
plutonium in sufficient quantityfor building bombs.
And if you read the entire protocol carefully, then you

(13:16):
will also come to the conclusionthat even the reactor grade
uranium. So there are two grades of
uranium very much in the news again now in connection with
Iran, right. So you enrich uranium 235 from
its natural abundance of approximately 0.7% to about 3%
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.
And at this time, at the time ofthis meeting, even reactor great
uranium was still in very short supply.
So it is very unlikely that uranium bombs could have been
built at the time. But nevertheless, at this

(14:02):
meeting, Compton claimed that uranium bombs were already in
production, probably to impress the politicians who were also in
attendance at the meeting. OK, now if indeed there were
already multiple such bombs, then you would expect that such

(14:22):
a bomb would have been tested before being used in war against
Hiroshima. And interestingly, in this
connection, we have the report of this young man, Robert
Wilson, very capable physicist. He oversaw the experimental

(14:42):
research at Los Alamos. So he was reporting to Compton,
I suppose. Now what he reports on is that
very hurriedly in the critical days before the 1st nuclear
explosion, he carried out an experiment to make sure that

(15:03):
none of the nuclear fission reactions were delayed beyond a
certain period of time, certain amount of time, because this
delay would have deleterious effects on the efficiency of the
explosion. What this means is until he had
done this experiment, they couldn't be sure that the
uranium bomb would work right. So this would be a very good

(15:25):
reason, as already stated, for testing such a bomb.
But this test was not carried out.
Interestingly enough, he also seems to be seems to have been
under the impression that the first bomb test would use
uranium, not plutonium. So this would be a contradiction
to the official story as well, right?

(15:46):
So we have both Compton and Wilson in their reports, in
their respective reports plainlycontradicting the official story
of the first three nuclear detonations, in particular of
the use of plutonium bombs in the first bomb test and in
Nagasaki. So we don't even have to go any

(16:08):
further than just official documents of the US government
to come up with some reasons to doubt the official story.
So then we have to decide what really happened there.
So we should look at the evidence ourselves.
So then what sorts of evidence are usually cited to support the

(16:32):
official story of the atomic bombings, right.
So we have the evidence of totalannihilation of the two cities.
Then we have radioactive falloutleft behind by these bombings.
And we have the victims of radiation sickness.
Other victims suffered flash burns.
Some obviously suffered both at the same time.

(16:52):
And then we have the famous atomic shadows allegedly left
behind by people who were evaporated in an instant, and
only their shadows were left behind on the wall of the
pavement. And if we conclude, as I propose
we should, that there were indeed no nuclear detonations,
and we also have to consider whywas this staged and why would

(17:16):
the Japanese have failed to notice what was going on?
How were they being fooled? Right.
So we will go through all of this today in a little bit of
detail. Here's the book which I have
written on the topic. You can find it for free at my
website, also on archive.org. You can also buy print copies on
the lower Amazon if you are so inclined.

(17:38):
One key point is that in this book I list all the references
for the evidence I will show, right?
So these are mostly published books and scientific papers, so
I won't go through these references today.
You can all look them up in the book if you are interested.
So let's start with this gentleman who was an early

(18:01):
eyewitness of the damage done bythe bombings in both of these
cities. Okay, so Alexander Deserverski,
he had actually grown up in Russia.
He had been a fighter pilot for his native country in World War
One and shortly after, probably because of the revolution.

(18:21):
And it's the living conditions engendered by it.
He fled the country, went to theUnited States.
There he became a successful engineer and constructor of
combat aircraft. And he had very good connections
to the US government. And after World War Two, he was
sent on an inspection tour of the bombed out cities both in

(18:43):
Germany and in Japan. And he had seen many cities
destroyed by conventional bombings before visiting
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And if you read the quote here
from a book of his, then he professes astonishment that
Hiroshima and Nagasaki look the same as the other cities.

(19:04):
So this quote only deals with Hiroshima, but he confirms later
on explicitly also for Nagasaki.OK.
And he also shows some pictures.And this is a picture of
downtown Hiroshima. Hiroshima is situated in the
river delta. So this is one of the delta arms
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
on the ground that is directly beneath the detonation of the
atomic bomb, and the atomic bombis said to have been set off at
a height of approximately 600 metres above ground.
So what he points out is that these buildings are still

(19:49):
standing. They are obviously damaged, some
of some of them severely, but other steel, concrete structures
are still standing. And he says that the
destruction, the extent of destruction in the city was
actually less than in Berlin, for example.
What had been completely distorted were the many wooden

(20:11):
buildings, right? Both cities, as many other
Japanese cities, consisted mostly of wooden buildings of
traditional construction, and they simply had been burnt to
the ground. But as far as the force of the
explosion went, there was nothing unusual to be seen in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So we can conclude that the

(20:33):
extent of destruction did not exceed that scene in other
cities and does not force us to conclude that something very
unusual had been going on. Then return to the radioactive
bomb fallout, right? I already mentioned that we had
two different bomb types in the two cities.
The Hiroshima bomb is said to have consisted of 50 kilogrammes

(20:57):
of enriched uranium 235 and of that only approximately 1
kilogramme is said to have actually fission.
So the other 49 kilogramme should have come down and been
found somewhere on the ground. Obviously not all of it in the
city, but there should have beena decent amount of it in the
city. And from the one kilogramme of

(21:21):
fission, uranium 235, there should have been formed about 35
gramme of cesium 137, which is widely used as a fallout marker.
And in Nagasaki, the plutonium bomb is said to have contained 6
kilogramme plutonium 239. And again about 1 kilogramme is

(21:41):
said to have fission producing asimilar amount of cesium.
And the other five kilogramme should have been found on the
ground. So how much stuff was actually
found on the ground? What we have here is a gamma ray
spectrum from an early soil sample from Hiroshima.

(22:01):
So this sample was taken only about 3 days after the bombing
in Hiroshima, so before the fallout could have been washed
away by rain or blown away by the wind.
Apparently the weather was sunnyand dry at the time.
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
have in your sample according tothe energy, right.
So each isotope emits gamma rayswith a characteristic energy and
you can separate those and then each isotope will produce one of
these peaks here. And what we see here in black

(22:44):
are the is the mixture of natural background
radioactivity. The highest peak is due to
potassium 40, right, fairly close to the right hand side,
this highest peak there. And then you see the cesium 137,
which is artificial and it produces only a tiny peak.
That's a bit which I have highlighted here in red.

(23:06):
Now this measurement was carriedout in 1996, so approximately 50
years after the supposed nuclearbombing.
In that time, the cesium would have already decayed to an
extent of about 2/3. So had the same measurement been
carried out in 1945, the peak should have been three times

(23:28):
higher than it actually was, butstill, it would have been a lot
lower than several of the natural peaks here.
So that means there was only a tiny amount of cesium that was
reaching the ground at that point, certainly a lot less than
you would have expected. So another point to observe is

(23:48):
that as already mentioned, and later decades, in the 50s
mostly, many countries carried out nuclear bomb tests, right?
So that was the United States, but also Russia and then later
on China and so on. And the fallout from these bomb
tests, right, reached the atmosphere and was dispersed

(24:11):
across the globe, particularly the Northern hemisphere.
And you can find this fallout reductivity everywhere.
You can also find it in Hiroshima.
And you actually find more fallout derived from these later
bomb tests in Hiroshima. Then you find fallout from 1945,

(24:32):
so that essentially already tells you the story.
You don't really need to go any further than that, but one can
go further and can actually makemore specific arguments.
The next thing here we have a very interesting study.
The sample in question is shown in the picture.
This is a plasterboard, a piece of plasterboard from a house in

(24:56):
Hiroshima whose roof had been blown up.
So apparently due to the settingoff of some conventional
explosives, the roof had been blown off and then this
plasterboard became soiled by droplets of black rain.
You may have heard that the so called black rain in Hiroshima
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
residue of droplets of black rain directly on the
plasterboard here. So now uranium is actually
somewhat ubiquitous in nature. So you have to expect some
natural background uranium in the plaster itself.
So the samples taken from the plaster board can contain some

(25:40):
in principle can contain uraniumfrom the bomb and also from
natural background. Now, since the bomb uranium is
enriched for uranium 235, you should be able to tell from the
mixture of the two isotopes in your sample what fraction comes
from the bomb and what fraction comes from the background.

(26:01):
And you may have guessed it, thehighest amount that you can find
derived from the bomb is no morethan 0.2%, right?
So 99.8% of the stuff in the sample comes from the plaster.
And no, only one 0.2% would comefrom the bomb.
That is, if you believe that indeed the stuff that was

(26:25):
dispersed at the time was indeedas highly as enriched as
claimed. And it can be shown also from
other studies that it was indeednot right.
It was only very weakly enriched, in keeping also with
this meeting protocol, which already mentioned they simply
did not have the technology at the time to produce highly

(26:45):
enriched uranium in relevant amounts.
So in conclusion, in Hiroshima we find only tiny amounts of
fission products, cesium being the marker for that, and also of
the bomb uranium. What we do find, however, in
Hiroshima is not only cesium butalso plutonium.

(27:08):
OK. Now plutonium is formed from
uranium 235 in reactive fuel, right?
So in reactive fuel, you have lots of you have a bit of
enriched uranium 235, you have lots of uranium 238, and this
uranium 238 can capture some of the neutrons released by the

(27:31):
fission of uranium 235, and thenit turns into plutonium 239.
This happens in the reactor, butit should happen only to a very,
very small degree in a detonating uranium 235 bomb.
Nevertheless, in the Hiroshima fallout, you do find plutonium

(27:52):
in amounts that are characteristic of reactor fuel.
So what this means is that the material that was disbursed in
Hiroshima did not come from any detonating device.
It simply was reactor waste. It was reactor material.
Now, the authors of the study studies, this was this was a

(28:12):
Japanese group of researchers. They expressed surprise at
finding this plutonium in these samples, and so they are
actually taking precautions to avoid contamination of the
samples by the global fallout from later bomb tests.
And they did this by sampling soil from underneath wooden

(28:37):
houses that had been built shortly after the bombings in
the Hiroshima area. OK, so then this fallout should
have been what? The soil should have been
protected from the fallout from later bomb test.
So they explain it by postulating that somehow the
fallout got underneath these houses anyway.
But this doesn't wash for two reasons.

(28:59):
The first one is that the fallout underneath these houses
is stuck at the surface of the soil right, which is shown here
on the left. So the author showed 4 samples
and then three of them the highest amount of rate activity
was found at the very top of thesample and in the other, in the

(29:21):
fourth sample it was found at the depths of five centimetres
in soil samples taken simply from in the open right.
So this soil would have receivedboth the rate activity dispersed
in 1945 and during later bomb tests we see that the fallout

(29:42):
has migrated. So probably due to percolating
rainwater, it is now found at a depth of five to 10 centimetres
in the soil. But that is still too slow.
This rate of transport obviouslyis way too slow to cause any
sort of transport from soil outside the houses to underneath

(30:04):
those houses. So this proposed mechanism of
contamination simply doesn't apply.
We have to conclude that the plutonium found in these samples
was indeed dispersed already in 1945, and therefore indeed that
reactor material was dispersed. OK, let's turn to Nagasaki.
In Nagasaki we actually find higher levels of fallout.

(30:25):
It also includes a fair amount of plutonium, but somewhat
strangely, we find it at a distance of approximately 3
kilometres from the hippocenter in the Nishiyama Reservoir.
That's a small artificial body of water, right?
It's really no obvious reason why so much fallout should be
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,
because in the year 2008, a group of Japanese researchers
did a detailed study on the fallout.
What they did do was to drill upa core of sediment from this
reservoir, right? So they drilled a into the

(31:13):
sediment to a depth of apparently at least 470
centimetres. They pulled up this plug right,
sliced it up and looked for the amount of radioactivity in each
of the slices. And at a depth of approximately
440 centimetres, they find a High Peak of radioactivity that
includes both plutonium and alsocesium.

(31:37):
Now, what they also find is a layer that contains charcoal
particles. That layer is about 15
centimetres below the productivity.
And so they ascribe these charcoal particles to the soot
of the burning city, right? Both cities burned up after
being bombed in 1945. I think that's a plausible

(32:02):
explanation for these charcoal particles.
But we then have to conclude that obviously the OK, since
these two markers are not found in the same layer in the
sediment, they were probably deposited at a time at at
different times. And if we simply calculate the

(32:24):
rate, the average rate of deposition over times and we get
approximately 7 centimetres per year.
So then this difference in height within the sediment would
amount to a difference in time of approximately 2 years.
And now we remember that Arthur Compton in 1945 said he would
need another two years before hewould be able to purify

(32:47):
plutonium. So this actually fits quite
well. So it really seems that as soon
as the Americans had finally managed to purify plutonium,
that dumped some of it into thisreservoir in order to fake for
the benefit of later researchers, the presence of
nuclear fallout from these bombs.

(33:08):
And they apparently had not expected somebody to undertake
such a detailed study as this Japanese group.
I have to note that the Japaneseresearchers, they don't draw the
same conclusions as I do. They see, they say that the
methods, the mechanism of separation is not understood.
That needs further investigation.

(33:30):
But I think the most straightforward explanation is
simply that these two substanceswere deposited at different time
points in time. OK, so these were right.
So the fallout evidence is clearly fake.
There's lots more fake physical evidence and I won't will only
go over one example to show whatwas done to illustrate what was

(33:53):
done. So if we have a chain reaction
going off in the air, what should be happening is that
uranium nuclei capture neutrons and the fission into two smaller
products, sometimes 3 and release more secondary neutrons,
right? And then some of these secondary
neutrons cause the fission of more nuclei of uranium, since

(34:17):
therefore we have a chain reaction.
But other neutrons, some of these neutrons, they escape the
centre of the detonation and strike the ground.
And on the ground they do two things.
They contribute to the radiationdose received by the people on
the ground, or they simply strike some soil and the atomic

(34:38):
nuclei and the soil, they can capture these neutrons and then
some of them will actually turn radioactive.
An example being cobalt 59 whichis stable that can capture a
neutron becomes cobalt 60 and cobalt 60 is radioactive has a
half life of approximately 6 years so it can be measured many

(34:59):
years later. OK, now you can do this and you
can then from such measurements try to infer how much, how
intense the neutron radiation must have been at the time of
the bombing. And if you do this for different
isotopes, you have to apply different corrections for time,

(35:22):
right? Because the half lives differ,
you have to in your back calculation apply different
correction factors in order to arrive at the correct neutron,
those neutron Fluence at the time of the event.
In principle, the estimates fromdifferent isotopes, from
different radioactive isotopes induced by capture of neutrons,

(35:47):
they should all agree, but we see that they actually differ,
right quite considerably. We have three different
isotopes, cobalt 60 and europium154 and 152.
They all differ from each other.But if we assume that maybe the
irradiation did not happen in 1945, but it happens three years

(36:09):
later or 3 1/2 years later, thenwe see that they almost
perfectly agree. OK, so I suspect that this
particular sample was fabricatedin the lab sometime in 1948 or
maybe 1949, which is a similar time frame to the fakery going
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
couple more examples of evidencethat is just replete with
internal contradiction clearly indicating that it was fake.
OK, so this much about the physical evidence.
Now, if we conclude from our analysis of this physical

(36:54):
evidence that there were no nukes, then we have to wonder
how did all these cases of acuteradiation sickness come about?
And these cases are quite numerous.
So you have lots of eyewitness reports.
You also have medical reports that describe people suffering
bone marrow failure. One symptom caused by bone

(37:16):
marrow failure is lack of blood,platelets, thrombocytes, and
this causes bleeding and as you can see, right, bleeding in the
skin. You can see in the young man on
the left who actually died on the day after this photograph
was taken. And also the hair follicles tend
to be quite susceptible to radiation.

(37:36):
So then this causes hair loss, as you can see in the boy on the
right. Other symptoms, right?
You also have a failure of the leukocytes, which are important
for defence against infections. So you also have infections,
high fever and so on. Often the infection affects the
oral cavity. OK, so how do we explain this?

(38:00):
The first thing is we can ask iscould it be, after all explained
by radiation? If indeed the story of the
nuclear bombs were true, then what we should expect is a very
distinctive distribution of radiation sickness around the
hippocenter. You have very high doses between

(38:20):
the first kilometre from the hippocenter, so much so that
everybody who would be exposed to the radiation out in the open
without any shielding from building, they should be dead,
right? They should succumb sooner or
later to acute radiation sickness.

(38:40):
On the other hand, since the doors actually drops off with
distance quite steeply beyond 1 1/2 or two kilometres, you
actually should see a very little acute radiation sickness.
Beyond two kilometres, you should essentially see no
radiation sickness and no death.OK.
The question is, is this actually observed in reality?

(39:02):
And we see that it is not on theleft hand side here in the
diagram right on the right hand side, do we see the
expectations? So everybody should be dead
within one kilometre of acute radiation sickness as long as he
was exposed out in the open. But we see that it's not the
case. So only about among those who

(39:22):
survived the first three weeks after the bombing, only 20%
actually died. So that's actually sorry this is
this is these numbers are illustrated here on the right
hand side of this diagram. So only about 20% died when in
fact all should have died. On the other hand, beyond two

(39:43):
kilometres, we should see neither symptoms of acute
radiation sickness nor death. And we see that both actually
continue beyond two kilometres. Particularly, symptoms of acute
radiation sickness are found in Hiroshima even beyond 4
kilometres from the hippocentresright.

(40:04):
And this is clearly a contradiction to the official
story. We also see the same effect in
later studies, right? So around 1960 the atomic what's
it called? The atomic Bomb Casualty
Commission in. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, right?

(40:27):
So they maintained 2 research outfits there.
So they tried to determine in hindsight the individual
radiation doses that each of thesurvivors would have received,
right? So they had first carried out
some physical experiments to determine the reach of nuclear
radiation in as a function of distance from the centre of the

(40:50):
donation. And then they carried out
interviews with all of these survivors and then they tried to
estimate for each of them how much radiation they would have
received. Right.
So what should result from such determinations is something
similar to the curve we see on the left.
That curve shows mortality amongrhesus monkeys that were exposed

(41:13):
to a later nuclear test of some sort at different distances.
So what you see here is a very steep transition from survival
to death. Below a dose of four grey, all
the monkeys survive, and below above a dose of 6th grade they
all die essentially. And you should see a similarly
steep transition. We see acute radiation symptom

(41:36):
sickness symptoms, but you don'tamong these survivors, you see
that even as a dose at a dose of6th grade, only about half of
them actually have symptoms of acute radiation sickness, right?
So the data points they scatter,they are all over the map.
So this means that the predictive power of the of this

(41:57):
model of the atomic donations just simply doesn't work.
One specific example is actuallyfound in a very early report by
the Red Cross committee. We see it here from this report
from 1945. And this is a young man, you may

(42:18):
not be able to read it, but he actually experience typical
symptoms of radiation sickness such as bleeding, hair loss,
loss of white blood cells, high fever and so on.
And he succumbed, OK. And other key point is we have
acute radiation sickness not only among those who were in the
city at the time, but also amongseveral 100 late entrants to

(42:43):
Hiroshima. OK, So the quote on the right is
from an official document. This reflects the official
story, right? So in a nuclear bomb detonation,
radiation should only be released and received for a few
seconds during determination itself.
OK, so everybody who was outsidethe city at the time should have

(43:08):
been protected from acute radiation sickness.
Nevertheless, we see that acute radiation sickness was quite
common among those people who spent several days near the
Hippo centre, probably to help with rescue and recovery.
So that's another clear contradiction to the official
story. Then we have anecdotal reports

(43:30):
of miraculous survival, right? We have an early report by an
American physician who was working at Osaka at the time and
he interviewed a patient who waswho claimed to have been
practically directed to Hippo Centre right and survived it.
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
somehow to Osaka and to at leastsurvive long enough to relate
his story to this physician. And then I really mentioned
those interviews and when the survivors in those interviews
claimed reported to have been very close to the centre of the

(44:13):
detonation, then they were simply brushed off and the
interviewers simply assumed thatthey were just telling a fantasy
tale. So this is how these how
objectively these scientific investigations were carried out.
Then we have Ashley Autism. He was in a surgeon from Yale.

(44:35):
He actually was heading up an investigative committee at the
at Hiroshima. He professed to have been
puzzled by some of these observations.
And when he reported his findings in 1956, he did so in

(44:56):
the nick of time because a shorttime later he was actually
killed in a plane crash in Colombia.
And several of his colleagues apparently also died by still
young, but they could not find out when exactly and where
exactly they were caught by their fate.
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
have to look very far. We can find plenty of eyewitness
testimony. People reported having inhaled
some poisonous gas, particularlyhere.
This schoolboy, he's a Toito. He began to lose his hair when
he breathed the gases when the bomb fell.

(45:41):
OK, so he breathed in some poisonous gas that made him lose
his hair. He actually died shortly after
writing this down of leukaemia. We also have Australian
journalist Wilfried Burchett, who managed to sneak into
Hiroshima. And even then he noticed a
sulfuric smell. And the Japanese he talked to

(46:03):
were talking to him about poisonous gas.
And they ascribed this poisonousgas to radioactivity, which of
course is not very sensible, butthey probably were simply, they
simply had been told a bullshit story about radioactivity
somehow producing poisonous gas because the experience was so

(46:23):
commonplace that poisonous gas had been around and it had to be
explained in order to simply be denied, of course.
And the West, you were never told about poisonous gas at all.
OK, so here we have the most likely culprit.
This is sulphur mustard. Right Here you have the
structural formula. The sulphur atom is right in the
middle. You may know it's a battle gas

(46:43):
that was used by both sides in World War One.
It stinks. It smells like garlic, onions or
rotten eggs. And Even so, it's called a gas.
It has it's an oily fluid with ahigh boiling point and also in
the with a high density it can position the environment for
weeks and months. And this would explain both the

(47:04):
delayed effects on people who came to the city only afterwards
and it could also explain the observations by Burchett.
The sulphur mustard reacts with DNA and not going to go through
the steps here, but what it doesit introduces cross links
between the two strands of adna molecule and these.

(47:26):
The reaction products are hard to repair for the cells.
So the damage to the DNA, Even so it's structurally different
from the damage done by radiation has similar biological
effects. The DNA damage ultimately
explains the biological effects on the bone marrow and other

(47:46):
rapidly proliferating tissues such as the intestinal mucous
membranes and for example hair follicles.
So this explains the similarities between the effects
of sulphur mustard and of radiation.
But there are also some differences.
Radiation is very penetrating, so it can hit the bone marrow

(48:10):
and the and the intestinal membranes for example without
doing much damage outwardly to the skin, for example.
But mustards of a mustard being a chemical has to be taken up
somehow either by inhalation or through across the skin, and it
will actually cause some damage to the skin and to the lung in

(48:33):
the process. And it also damages the
circulation and causes what's called capillary leak syndrome,
right. So that is actually exactly what
the name suggests. You have a leakiness of the
blood circulation. So the blood fluid seeps out of
the circulation into the tissues.

(48:53):
The tissues swell up, the patients of the years, of the
victims, they suffer extreme thirst.
And in keeping with this, in eyewitness testimony from both
cities, you'll find reports of people drinking from rivers,
pools and puddles, anything, anykind of water they would get.
And their bodies were swelled upgrotesquely so that you couldn't

(49:15):
really tell men from women except by the length of the hair
and so on and so forth. Also, inhaled mustard gas will
cause toxic, toxic lung edoema. And this also jibes with with
eyewitness testimony from both cities.
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.
Here we have a section, cross section of lung tissue from a
boy who died three days after the Hiroshima bombing.
And what we see here in this lung tissue are the alveoli.
These are the white airfield spaces and healthy lung tissue.
They should all be of identical,of similar size.

(49:59):
But what we see here is that some of the alveoli are grossly
inflated and others compressed, and this is due to the
obstruction, due to the chemicaldamage done by sulphur mustard
on the smallest bronchi. And that's a typical picture
that you find described in handbooks on the effects of
mustard gas. It is absolutely not typical for

(50:22):
damage of radiation. Radiation indeed does very
little acute damage, if any at all to lung tissue, at least at
doses that are immediately that are not immediately deadly.
Then we also have reports of peeling skin and mucous
membranes and bombing victims, right?
So you may know that mustard gasis a physician.

(50:43):
So it causes the skin to peel. That's very typical.
Not going to read these quotes to you and then we can turn to
the so called flash burns. OK, So what were these flash
burns? Here we have 3 victims, sorry,
we have two victims of napalm burns and we have one victim of
nuclear flash burn. So which one is different?

(51:06):
They are not different from eachother.
They are all the same, right? In each case we have
circumscribed lesions, we have ahave irregular boundaries, but
we have a clear transition, sudden transition from healthy
skin to the burnt tissue. If you have a burn caused by
light, what you would expect is that the burn is everywhere

(51:30):
where the light touched the skin.
So these kind of patterns are not expected, cannot be
reconciled with the idea that this damage was done by burns
and by by a flash of light. But on the other hand, napalm
burns fit the picture perfectly,and we also have similar reports

(51:50):
to match from the days of the bombing itself.
So here we have a witness reportfrom the diary of a physician
from Hiroshima who describes a situation that should remind us
of the famous napalm girl picture that everyone has seen.

(52:12):
Then we also have the retinal burns.
OK, so an intense flash of lightthat enters the eye should be
focused on one spot on the retina and should cause some
sort of intense burn there. And this indeed happened in
later bomb tests. So what we see here in the

(52:33):
picture is the eye ground of AGIof an American soldier who had
looked at the flash of a later bomb test and you see this
volcano like structure in the middle lattices scar of the of
that burn. So then the question is how many
clinical case reports do we havefrom Hiroshima at Nagasaki?
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
eyewitnesses who report having looked into the flash.
So we must assume some flash indeed happened.
But on the other hand, it was clearly not intense enough to
cause to 'cause these kinds of retinal burns, then the atomic

(53:20):
shadows. Sorry, I have to.
I have to take a sip of water. Then the atomic shadows.
We have eyewitness reports, right?
I already mentioned this reversegame, who also visited 2 cities

(53:43):
in early September. He had reported was that there
was nothing unusual to be seen in these two cities, right?
He for two days he searched the city, but he couldn't find
anything unusual. The shadows here, right?
The shadows of the posts of the bridge railing, they were to be
seen on a bridge within one kilometre of the epicentre

(54:05):
right. So somebody would probably have
pointed them out to him if they had already existed.
On the other hand, we find in the diary of Avril Lebo who came
to the city on October 13th, 13th, that's in many locations
in those cities, the shadows were to be found.

(54:27):
And he even arranged some sort of a Grand Tour to show his
guests around. OK.
And the bridge he mentions in this quote, he is the very one
in the picture. So what we can conclude from
this is that the special effectsteams who created these shadows,
they must have been quite busy in September.
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
the posts and compare this to expectation.
We know where the bridge is located relative to the HIPAA
centre. We know how high up in the air
the detonation is supposed to occur, and from that we can
calculate how long the shadows should have been.
And we see that the shadows should have been considerably

(55:11):
longer than they were actually found to be in reality.
So therefore, whatever these shadows are, I suspect this is
simply just paint that was spraypainted onto the pavement.
But wherever they are, they don't match the story of the
atomic bombing. So what this means is some more

(55:33):
physical evidence that points the other way.
So then we have the beautiful cloud.
OK, so we can first wonder, why should there be any atomic
clouds at all? There shouldn't be, because
there's nothing that's burning up.
There is no release of any chemical products really in a
nuclear detonation. There's only heat being

(55:53):
released. So what we should see is
actually simply a flash, and if there were already any naturally
formed clouds in the vicinity, they should evaporate.
There shouldn't be a formation of new clouds, there should only
be an evaporation of any clouds already existing.
On top of that, the particular cloud in Hiroshima is described

(56:13):
by eyewitnesses as very colourful.
What is shown here in this quote, and what we can assume is
that probably coloured smoke bombs were used in the creation
of these clouds. And indeed there is one
eyewitness report from Hiroshimaof a woman who had a purple
coloured smoke bomb going up in her living room.

(56:36):
So more figury then we can wonder overall how was it done.
So I already mentioned that somesort of flash was created.
The cloud was created. The flash may have been
magnesium flash bombs, photo flash bombs.
That's hard to reconstruct from the very limited evidence.
Might also have been a so calledthermobaric weapons.

(57:00):
Then we have napalm burns and eyewitness testimony suggests
that napalm bombs were detonatedhigh up above the city and that
the burning napalm gobs, they were simply raining down on the
city. I suppose the sulphur mastered
was delivered in the same way. So also the bombs were set to go
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
trickery that was gone on that was going on later.
Then we have the black grain to consider.
I suppose this was simply reactor waste and the black
grain is described, but eyewitnesses is oily.

(57:45):
So I think that they somehow contrived to dissolve the
reactor waste and some oily matrix and they dispersed that
this this oily fluid on the ontothe ground.
And to hide this dispersal of this black rain, they also made
some watery rain. So there was actually a
substantial volume of regular watery rain also coming down at

(58:08):
the same time. And I think that watery rain was
intended to disguise the black oily rain.
Now, the oily rain was not supposed to be black.
It simply turned black because the oil droplets picked up soot
on the way down through these, through the clouds from the
burning city. So I think that this was sort of

(58:32):
backfired on them. They tried to disguise the
dispersal of reactor waste, but they actually made it quite
conspicuous. Of course, the proper
explanation hasn't been provideduntil today.
OK, so then another point is after the bombings had been
staged, the aftermath had to be managed in order to prevent the

(58:55):
truth from coming out right? See particularly the widespread
experience of poison gas was simply blamed on the on the
radioactivity. I even found quoted in one
scientific report the term atom bomb gas.
So even the medical community was deceived into believing that

(59:17):
atomic bombs somehow produced harmful gas.
Atomic shadows were spray painted.
We have already covered that. And then another important point
is very heavy censorship of medical research.
So very little medical data cameout, particularly in the first
couple of years, but that littlebit that did come out already

(59:39):
contains some interesting findings.
For example, those napalm burns that were passed off as flash
burns. Then another point is if it
these bombings were staged, however, the Japanese
authorities deceived. I mean, it's one thing to
deceive the population. But another thing to deceive the

(01:00:01):
government, which has it's this at its disposal, military
experts, medical experts, physical experts and so on.
What I believe is that the Japanese were not deceived at
all. I think they were actually
coerced into collaborating with staging these bombings.
OK, there are several signs to indicate that indeed they were

(01:00:27):
not deceived. For example, they didn't trigger
an air alarm, but there must have been many American
aeroplanes in the air to deliverall this of various kinds of
orders we have discussed. There is an official report by
the US government estimating that in Hiroshima, some 200
planes, even more than that would have been needed, that

(01:00:50):
would have delivered conventional explosives and
incendiaries in order to achievethe observed extent of
destruction. The Japanese would have seen
those planes in the air and theyshould have triggered an air
alarm, but it didn't occur. Indeed, they actually cancelled
an air alarm in Rashima that hadbeen enforced just a few minutes
before the actual bombing occurred.

(01:01:13):
And this there are more indications that indeed the
Japanese were not deceived. So then the question is, how
were they coerced into colluding?
We already have discussed the firebombing campaign, right?
Beginning in March 1945, Tokyo was bombed first and then every
major and mid sized city in Japan was destroyed.

(01:01:36):
After that, Japan depended on food import and their military
situation getting ever more desperate prevented them from
receiving these supplies. And the Russians were obviously
preparing to enter into the war.Indeed, they did enter on the
same day as the Nagasaki bombing.
And one might also speculated some of the atrocities that were

(01:02:00):
committed by the Americans in Germany, for example, the
Dresden bombing, but also, for example, the Crime Reason desk
death camps in which according to James Buck, approximately
1,000,000 soldiers, prisoners were stabbed to death.
That these were also stage the disease were also carried out in

(01:02:24):
order to send a message to the Japanese, right?
That they better go along with staging these nuclear bombings
because otherwise they would suffer an even worse fate.
OK, then we might wonder why wasit done?
And again, we don't really have to be super sluices in order to
find out why. Because the nuclear scare

(01:02:45):
propaganda which began immediately afterwards, actually
tips us off. Tips us off.
We have here a propaganda booklet to which very
illustrious scientists contributed.
Einstein himself see that Wigner, Hans Bader and the title

(01:03:05):
already gives the game away. One world or none.
And Leo, See that actually spelled it out for us.
We need a world government in order to save the world from
nuclear destruction. This is what it was about.
It was a terror attack. It was intended to scare the
world populace into willingly giving up for their national

(01:03:27):
sovereignties and submitting to a new and benevolent world
government and the people who took it upon themselves to
further spread this message in the years afterwards.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist.
They have in the meantime also adopted very many other worthy

(01:03:50):
causes, right? They were on top of the COVID
agenda, they pushed climate change and so on.
And they have this world famous doomsday clock which is
perennially stuck at a couple ofseconds or minutes to midnight,
right? So here you see two true
scientists obviously next to their chariot doomsday clock.

(01:04:13):
You can also buy an entire book about the doomsday clock at 75
saying is even a broken clock isright twice a day.
But this doomsday clock seems tobe the exception.
So even at 75 years, it has never been right even once.
Then we have testimony by Verna Heisenberg on 1st learning of

(01:04:37):
the Hiroshima bombing. She said it is nothing got, it's
got nothing to do with atoms. OK.
Heisenberg at the time was actually interned together with
the entire elite of the German nuclear physics in England and
their reaction to the news of the Hiroshima bombing was
carefully recorded. The question is why?

(01:04:59):
Why did they intern these peopleat the time?
It was already clear at the timethat Germany, after all, had not
pursued its own atomic bomb programme.
So there was really nothing to be learned from these people.
Or was there, I suspect, but cannot prove, that the reason
for in turning these people intolistening in on their

(01:05:19):
conversations on the atomic bombs, on supposed atomic bombs,
was that they just might come upwith a clear cut argument for
why these stories had to be wrong, had to be false.
And I think if they had come up with such an argument, that
would probably have been it for them.
So lucky for them, they didn't really persevere with this

(01:05:42):
initial reaction, but later on became persuaded that after all
the atomic bombing story may have been true.
And so therefore, they were actually released in January of
1946. OK, we have already discussed
this book by Akhil Nakatani. So I would suggest that you look
at it. The problem is nowadays you
can't find it anymore on Amazon.So you would have to track it

(01:06:05):
down somehow second hand. And finally, another plug for my
own book. Again, you can find it for free
in electronic format, or you canbuy a print copy.
And in this book I go over everything at greater depths.
I discuss additional medical andphysical findings which further

(01:06:25):
support the conclusions I have presented here.
Thank you very much. Why did only let's just assume
that the atomic bombs were real.Why did the US only choose two
cities? You know why?
Why was Tokyo firebombed in the same year?
And why was Dresden? I mean, let's be honest, right?
I mean, Germany was like the ultimate enemy of the Allies.

(01:06:48):
No nuclear bombs dropped on Germany well, but only these two
cities in Japan well. The official story is that they
got the atomic bombs to work only just in time, right?
So the first atomic test is supposed to have been carried
out in July of 1945. By that time, Germany had
already capitulated, so it was already out of the war, and

(01:07:10):
Japan then capitalated shortly after, right?
So the story as it's told is that Japan refused to surrender
and the Americans were on the verge of invading the country,
and this would have entailed lots more additional losses.
So then they tried the atomic bombs in order to persuade Japan

(01:07:31):
to give up. And then Japan actually did give
up in the end. OK, so at the superficial level,
the story, the story is believable.
I've looked at photographs of. Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki

(01:07:53):
and they all look very similar. Well, that's that's what
Dysversky also said, right? He also says that he that
Hiroshima and Nagasaki really didn't visibly distinguish
themselves in any way, so there was no reason to assume that
anything special had occurred inthose cities.

(01:08:15):
But that's only the directly visible signs.
So I think that for example, theso called radiation sickness,
that is clearly different, right?
So there must have been something more than just fire
bombing in the end. Yes, but what I mean is a lot of
the concrete structures in all three other cities remain.

(01:08:36):
That is true, That is correct. So it seems that in Germany, I
mean, Germany had mostly stone structures here, fairly solid
western construction, right. So you had there was a need for
breaking through those structures.
So the Allies actually used lotsof explosives in their in their

(01:08:58):
bombing campaigns. Whereas in Japan you had largely
buildings of light wooden construction.
And so they used mostly incendiaries in those cities.
They did also use some sort of explosives in Hiroshima, for
example. So there are reports of houses
having immediately collapsed after some added air bursts and

(01:09:19):
this sort of thing. So some explosives were used as
well, but obviously these explosives were not any stronger
than those used in other places.The Manhattan Project famously
had hundreds of thousands of people working on it.
Yes. What would they?

(01:09:40):
What were they working on? And were they that many people?
I have no idea whether I have honestly, I have really not
looked into that question whether how many people were
really employed there. I mean, most of them must have
been working some sort of bullshit jobs.
So probably if they were even employed, I suspect these lists

(01:10:04):
may have been fictitious and themoney might seem the money for
the salaries might simply have been stolen.
Oppenheimer and his friends at Los Alamos, I mean, they may
have done some calculations, butnot a lot more.
They may have done some small scale experiments, for example,
the one which I initially mentioned carried out by Robert
Wilson. But the crucial fact is they

(01:10:25):
simply had no nuclear fuel from which to assemble any kind of
nuclear bomb. So all their work was
essentially fictitious, right? The real, the real physical work
was apparently mostly done in inChicago, University of Chicago.

(01:10:48):
So this is where the first reactors were built by Enrico
Fermi and they apparently also had very capable chemist there
who would purify all manner of nuclear fission products from
the reactor material from Fermisreactors.
And then this was used again also in Chicago in animal

(01:11:09):
experiments. So they have detailed animal
experiments to study every different purified fission
products and its biological effects on experimental animals.
They did that. It also tested in parallel,
interestingly enough, the effects of mustard gas on those
same animals, right? Or on other animals of the same

(01:11:32):
species. They published a report on it.
The findings with the various fission products are carefully
documented in that report. The findings with mustard gas
are left out from the report, and no mention is made of the
atomic bombings. Even so, this report was

(01:11:53):
published only in 1948, I think it was.
It was at 49. So Even so, the atomic bombings
had supposedly really occurred. There is absolutely no mention
of them, but no mention. There's no mention.
There's no attempt to correlate these experimental findings with
observations from the two cities, which is quite striking

(01:12:14):
I would say. Most, if not all of the photos
that we see of the famous mushroom cloud were given to us
by the Allies, not by the Japanese.
And I've tried finding photos from Japanese photographers and
there are very few and they lookvery different.
Yes. Well, yes, I don't know how

(01:12:42):
genuine the photos of those mushrooms cloud really are.
Clouds really are that are givento us by the by the allies.
I have no trust in any in any ofthe photographic records, in any
of the data and information theygave us.
I think what the Japanese photographers caught was simply
the smoke clouds from the burning cities, right?

(01:13:05):
So it was in about a couple of minutes, 1/2 an hour of the
bombings, both cities were aflame and there was huge big
smoke plumes rising from those cities.
And I think that's what you findin the Japanese imagery.
But the eyewitness testimonies report really all in unison that

(01:13:27):
these smoke clouds or these mushroom clouds, they already
formed at the very beginning, within the very first minute of
the attack essentially. So it's not this wasn't all.
So these, these the smoke plumesof the burning cities, they were
certainly real, but this was notall right.
I mean, the bossy early formation of the mushroom clouds

(01:13:51):
and then also the description ofthose clouds as colourful and so
on, some other special elements clearly show that there was
something more than just the just the burning city.
So this was part of the fireworks, let's call it that,
right? So I think very elaborate
fireworks were used to to stage those those bombings.

(01:14:14):
And the formation very early on of these mushroom clouds was
part of it. And I think it was simply these
mushroom clouds were simply attended as smokescreens in
order to conceal from the peopleon the ground what was really
going on. Was bikini at all significant in
any way? Well, in Bikini, on Bikini, the

(01:14:41):
bomb tests, several bomb tests were supposed to, I think two of
them were supposed to have been held in 1946.
That would still be before the Manhattan Projects would have
been able to purify plutonium. Nevertheless, those bomb tests

(01:15:01):
were supposed to have been carried out with plutonium also,
So one must assume that these tests are also fake.
And the image imagery looks pretty fake as well.
I mean, there's lots of fake looking imagery from later bomb
tests. So it's very difficult to know
what exactly went on in these went on in these bomb tests
later times. On the other hand, something

(01:15:23):
must have been been done there. I think the fallout is real
enough. I think many investigators have
confirmed independently from each other the presence of
efficient products in soil samples from all over the world.
And I guess this would be very difficult to fake.
And unless all of these people are in on the on the deception,

(01:15:48):
I think one has to conclude thatthe fallout is real.
Well, Speaking of people being in on it.
Yeah. He would have been in on it in
terms of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, there's the famous Enola Gay and
the pilot and his small crew that were quoted multiple times.

(01:16:12):
How many? I mean, do you think that the
the amount of people involved atthe top would have been very
small? I think that I cannot put a real
number to it, but I think only overall a small minority of all
people working within the Manhattan Project in the US
military would have been in on it to at least entirely, right.

(01:16:35):
I mean, probably the the pilot and his crew, they would have
known that it was obviously fake, right, That they were not
even delivering any, any particular audit.
I also actually, I can't track it down right now, but I found a
picture of this crew standing next to their, you know, like a
plane and grinning as if they were just being on a very big

(01:16:59):
joke somehow, you know, I mean, not that they don't look like
people on a mission that is crucial, possibly dangerous,
might decide the war. They would you would, you would
expect a facial expression of some seriousness, a little grim
faces. They were just just standing
there and grinning as if there is just some sort of festivity

(01:17:20):
in progress, you know, So it's, it's, it's a bit odd then among
the scientists, I think. I mean, I, I talked about, I
talked about the meeting on May 31st, 1945.
You have the top tier of the scientists participating in the

(01:17:42):
project there. I think every one of the
scientists there would have known what the real state of
affairs was because they all kept silent.
As Compton told the fib of uranium bombs being in
production. Nobody objected to that.
Leslie Groves themselves would have known it.

(01:18:03):
On the other hand, I think this story about the uranium bombs
being in production was probablytold to deceive some of the
military officers and politicians in attendance.
I think they were being kept on the dark, in the dark on
purpose. I'm not even sure Truman himself
knew what was going on. I suspect Truman himself was

(01:18:24):
deceived as to the reality of the of the bombings.
I think he believed he was led to believe that he was indeed
ordering atomic bombings and that these bombings were at
least atomic, at least at the time.
I think he was deceived about it, but that's pretty much
conjecture. That's I think it fits better to

(01:18:45):
the to his attitude displayed here and there then the
opposite. Why has the Japanese government
not said anything? Well, they were taught better
not to tell anything about it. I think that they were really
mercifully threatened and blackmailed.

(01:19:07):
I think they really didn't want to go along with it, but in the
end they saw no other way. I think that the entire
conventional bombing campaign ofthe year 1945 was really needed
to beat them into submission. And they only really relented
when it became obvious that, youknow, sorry that the Soviet
Union would join the war, which they did anyway in the end,

(01:19:31):
right? Because Japan had at the time
occupied Manchuria and northern China, the Japanese forces,
their land forces, they had already been hollowed out.
They were in no position to offer resistance to the massive
onslaught of the of the Soviet forces.
The Japanese had also taken a significant number of settlers

(01:19:55):
across so civilian. I'm not sure it's extra about
the exact number, but it was more than 1,000,000 Japanese
civilians. They actually had settled in
Manchuria and when? The Japanese defence collapsed
within days really. They actually suffered A grim
fate. So many of them were were killed
or raped, this sort of thing, you know.

(01:20:15):
So they suffered a very grim face.
So the Japanese really only gaveup and relented and agreed to go
along with it, I believe a shorttime before the bombings
actually were staged. And I guess these threats didn't
end. I guess that if the Japanese

(01:20:37):
government were ever to acknowledge the truth of or is
it the truth, I think they wouldstill suffer punishment even
today. How can I get your book?
Or you can find it on lulu.com. You can also find it on
Amazon.com. If you simply look for the title
Hiroshima Revisited, you should be able to find it and you can

(01:21:00):
find the the electronic version free on my website at empalma
dot heresy dot IAS and you can find it also on archive.org.
All right. On that note, Michael Palmer,
thank you for joining me in the trenches.
OK. Thank you for the opportunity.
Enjoy the conversation. Thank you very much.