I’ll tell you, folks, I’m right on the edge of knowing that we’ve been hoodwinked about nuclear weapons. In my last post I put it at over 80% surety of the hoax, but that’s a bit misleading. See, the implications of this one — assuming it is another one — are so staggering that…
When an ‘appeal to emotion’ goes this far, think ‘psy op’.
…another way to put it is how I phrased my nuke-hoax belief a few posts ago: ‘I think nuclear weapons are a fraud but I live my life as if they are real,’ something to that effect. Well, that’s bullshit, isn’t it? The ‘snowball’ effects (a.k.a. implications) we’ve been talking about in Comments are a good example of what I mean, why I would say something that dumb ass.
An example is the UFO business someone brought up: an advanced intelligence would not fall for a nuclear hoax, so why would they bother to disarm ballistic missiles, as has been blabbed about (even in the mainstream media)?
Point being that if the nuke hoax is the case, it throws doubts upon the UFO issue, or at least certain aspects of it. I mean, doesn’t it?
Could be all that’s left of your own grandma or grandpa, no? Do you buy this?
So I’ve been looking deeper into the issue; I started this morning with the ‘nuclear shadows’ imagery. See, one thing I’ve figured out is that the PTB in their big lies, frequently get too ‘cute’ in their ‘proofs’, especially when the motive is to tug on our heartstrings. Let’s look at some of their ‘nuke shadows‘, given this explanation of causation:
The intense heat of the atomic explosion caused what are called nuclear shadows. The blast changed the colors of surfaces like steps, walls, and pavement because of the UV radiation that was emitted. When things that were soon to be vaporized blocked whatever what was behind them, they didn’t allow this UV color change to happen. And, as a result, outlines of people and objects incinerated in the bombing left haunting shadow imprints behind on such surfaces.
Hiroshima shadow locations are found throughout the city, on everything from banks to temples. The shadows caused by atomic bombs are often the only remnants left of human beings. Those vaporized in the blast left imprints behind so the legacy of Hiroshima cannot be forgotten. Now, take a look at these Hiroshima pictures and see these shadows for yourself.
Addendum: Notice the NLP in the above (in bold)? Get your emotions pumping and you won’t ask questions about veracity. ‘See these shadows for yourself!’ As if the images are the shadows and not… just fucking visual lies. One thing we should know by now is that seeing is not believing.
You might want to google ‘atom bomb shadows’, click ‘Images and peruse the gallery. When I did so — and given the above ‘explanation’ — the first thing that came to mind was this question: ‘Since this is no different from an extreme flash of sunlight, shouldn’t everything be ‘shadowed’ in the same manner as these images depict?’
Do you see what I mean? If you’re standing next to a light pole looking at your own shadow, wouldn’t it be weird if the light pole didn’t cast one too? If there’s no light pole shadow, we have a problem, don’t we?
Look at the image of the metal wall with two wheel-handles. Pretty obvious shadow thrown by the one in the foreground, correct? Okay, so where’s the shadow cast by the one on the left? How could one wheel cast a shadow while the other does not?
Same problem with the image to the right. There are many protuberances here but only one is casting a shadow (the thing hanging down in the middle). Don’t we need an explanation?…
I rummaged around the Net and found where some of these images come from. A military outfit doing a ‘USSBS’, or United States Strategic Bombing Survey. They even made a film we can watch on Youtube. A couple more clicks brought this up:
243.4.4 Records of the Physical Damage Division
Photographs (7,541 images): Used in the report, Effects of Incendiary Bomb Attacks on Japan, 1945-47 (R, 39 images). Atomic bomb damage to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including injuries to civilians, 1945-47 (H, G, NP, HP; 7,502 images). SEE ALSO 243.8.
Notice that they were documenting the incendiary attacks on Japan as well as the nukings. Pretty hard to separate the two, i.e., what images were from the firebombing as opposed to the nuking. I see no differences between the two.
Also, the shadow is supposed to show what the wall looked like BEFORE the blast. Here the opposite is the case (explanation below).
Let’s examine another one. Looks like a wooden wall with a ladder and a person casting shadows, right? Do you have a problem with this one? Are you wondering, as I am, how a person could be vaporized by a blast of heat while the wooden wall is unaffected? Shouldn’t the wall have been incinerated?
In my opinion, this is not just puzzling; it’s flat ridiculous. But maybe that’s just me. I tend to be overly suspicious with imagery from the State.
On the Google page it even says, ‘shadows etched on the walls at Hiroshima,’ which means this is outright deceit.
As I say, sometimes they get a bit too cute, and they assume that we’ll be so emotionally moved in picturing the unfortunate folks in their vaporizations that we’ll not think about the physics behind it. Let alone common sense. Talk about getting too cute, how about this little girl who got vaporized in front of a brink wall.
If you look closely you’ll see she’s skipping rope! Wow, bummer! This one is so over-the-top that I just had to look into it. Guess what? They admit it’s fake! But boy, you got to do some clickin’ to find this out. In fact, it’s only a paranoid nut case conspiracy theorist like me who would even do that, i.e., look into the image to see if it’s what they say it is. Only a nutcase would doubt that the image is real.
And why is ‘Hiroshima Shadows’ emblazoned across the photo? And why then (if it’s fake), when you search for ‘Hiroshima A-bomb shadow images’ do you find the same photo on the page along with ‘real’ ones?
The other thing that comes to mind if you’re a nutcase like myself, is the concept of what a shadow is. If you look at the explanation for the phenomenon of ‘nuclear shadows’ you find this:
The blast changed the colors of surfaces like steps, walls, and pavement because of the UV radiation that was emitted.
Also, the wall looks like wood, so how come it didn’t incinerate in the blast? But I’m repeating myself! Sorry!
What this seems to mean is that the area of the shadow is what the surface looked like before the bomb blast changed it. I mean, right? Keeping this in mind, look at the one of the plants (to the left), how their ‘shadow’ is pure white. This must mean that the wall was pure white before the blast. (Also look again at the image above of the ladder and human shadows. See what I mean in the caption?)
Does that wall look like it was white? Plus, I suspect that something as fragile as a slim plant would not stop a nuclear blast long enough to create such a startling effect. A nuclear blast would not be affected at all by a plant the thickness of a pencil.
Again, they are saying that the white is what the surface looked like before the blast and the dark effect was caused by the blast. It’s obvious that this cannot be the case, i.e., they are lying to us here.
And this next one, with the white fence posts. As I say, the point of these ‘shadows’ is that they supposedly prevented the blast from affecting the areas of shadow. Right? Right. Do you think the outdoor ground depicted here was ever white? In fact, if you look at the array of ‘Hiroshima A-bomb shadows’ images that comes up in a search, I think you’ll find that the shadow areas are not what those surfaces would naturally look like. See if you agree.
It’s obvious to me that at least some of the ‘nuclear shadow’ photos are frauds. So what does that mean? Given the real physics, at least as I see it, if they had to fake some of them, they are all probably faked. Why? Most likely because the laws of physics do not allow for the formation of ‘nuclear shadows,’ at least not the versions we’re subjected to.
Does this mean nuclear weapons are a hoax? No, not on its own. But at a certain point, when the fraudulent imagery and false ‘explanations’ pile up to mountain-sized (see the links in my last post), you have to start fucking thinking for yourself.
You have to decide whether you are actually going to follow the evidence.
#
Look, I just had a really distressing moment, and it lingers. In the midst of writing this I went to say goodbye to a guy I’d gotten friendly with here at the Rockhound State Park. Really nice guy, a fellow rubber tramp named Bob.
A couple nights ago, Bob borrowed a DVD of my film, Water Time. Loved it. I mean he really loved it. Went on and on about it and even re-borrowed it last night to watch it again. (If you haven’t seen the film this won’t mean much.)
Why don’t the rivets cast the same shadows as the bolts (they are not ‘nails’)?
Yesterday I sent him a link to my interview with my old Montauk friend, Walter Iooss, the well-known photog. (Again, if you haven’t seen it this won’t mean much.) A few minutes ago I asked Bob what he thought of that one.
I’m not going to go into details here, but what I found out is that Bob is just like the people I interview in Water Time, and is just like my old (ex)friend, Walter. I say he’s like those people in that evidence does not matter. Turns out Bob believes the official story about basically everything. No matter what I brought up (a few minutes ago), he had some insane crapola that meant… all’s well with the world.
Then how could he like (love, actually) Water Time? (How this could be is actually what has me freaked out.)
Here’s how it ended a few minutes ago:
Bob: I’m not going to upset myself by looking into this stuff.
Me: Do you have kids? (Bob is in his 60s)
Bob: Yes, I do.
Me: Then shame on you.
With that, Gus and I walked away. I hope I never see the guy again.
Goddammit. Goddammit. Goddammit. Goddammit.
WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT?
Allan
About an hour later:
A couple thoughts. First, a actual explosion in this craft would likely have done serious damage, aside from the O2 loss. The other thing is that O2 itself is not explosive. It needs another element that it can help to burn or explode (the tank was in a vacuum). Not sure about this one; someone should check the physics.
I been meaning to tell you. About a week ago I watched a NASA documentary on Apollo 13. (I hope you’ve seen my video/radio interview on that.) I was thinking I’d maybe notice something (I’m good at that) and I did. You might recall that the cause of the ‘explosion’ (and ‘Houston, we have a problem’) was the stirring of an oxygen storage tank; they flipped the switch and boom! In the docu they tell us why they had to stir the tank: ‘We had to stir it because if the oxygen settles in the bottom of the tank, we get a false reading on the gauge.’
What I noticed was this: They were in zero-G so the oxygen could not settle in the bottom of the tank. In zero-G the oxygen would be absolutely, utterly evenly distributed in the tank at all times (except when they were accelerating, which they were not). In zero-G there is no ‘bottom’. Another example of getting too cute with the bullshit. And underestimating (and insulting) our intelligences.
There was no fucking reason to stir the oxygen tank!!!
The ‘crisis story’ on Apollo 13 was based on a fake premise. By the laws of physics. (Why hasn’t someone else brought this up? Do I have to do fucking everything?)
Addendum: Sorry for that last parenthetical. I’m still upset about Bob.
Postscript: Seriously, folks, the possibility that we’ve been had via a nuke hoax has staggering implications. I’m depending on you all to list the reasons why this can and cannot be the case.
No bald assertions (‘It just can’t be true!’)
Give me your best factual shot, either way. I’m still far from sure on this but everything I look at tells me there is something very wrong on this subject. (If you are going to chime in seriously, I urge you to read the Nakatani book.)
Six hours later. Out of nowhere something occurred to me. Look at the shadows and ‘un-shadows’ (where the ‘bomb blast’ hit) in these two photos:
In one, the ‘shadow’ is darkness. In the other, the ‘shadow’ is white. Given the ‘explanation of cause,’ how does this make sense?
84 comments for “Shadows of a Doubt”