Then, after the obligatory disclaimer "I'm not a historian/scientist, but", may I just throw in something in, just for the sake of, well, I don't know - my own education?
First, I have read a great deal of Anatoly Fomenko's work and my main take away is this: *all* sacred texts are actually ancient astronomical descriptions and forecastings recycled into Earthbound mythologies and hagiographies of mainly fictionalized/romanticized historical characters - the main one being Christ, obviously - who are supposed to have lived in places that don't have anything to do with their actual denomination - the main one being Jerusalem, which is actually a *concept* rather than an actual city - in times that are chronogically severely ill-defined. Those ancient texts are also not so ancient, either, the Bible having been written up until the XVIth century. So, prophecies, self-fulfilling or not, are at best misintepretations, at worst, scams. I realize that the notion that History is the mother of all scams might not go down well with you being an historian - but there it is. Please don't spare my feelings.
Second, there isn't such a thing as a "nuclear weapon". I first dug into that rabbit hole through Miles Mathis (original article here http://mileswmathis.com/trinity.pdf, my translation here http://skidmark.blog/2022/08/10/le-canular-nucleaire-par-miles-mathis/), meaning that Hiroshima and Nagazaki were wooden cities carpet bombed with incendiary bombs. You can find all manners of picture analysis on the Net that all seem to prove it. I have since bumped into more scientific ways to argue the point, and they all seem to hold water pretty well. I'm sure there are very powerful conventional weapons to bomb whole countries into oblivion, but nuclear Armageddon is just one more fairy tale in a long list of fairy tales.
Thanks for your comment and feel free to translate the article.
I can assure you that nuclear weapons exist. From a physics standpoint the pathway from nuclear reactors to nuclear weapons is undeniable. There is also video footage of the atom bombs being dropped on Japan, taken from one of the bombers. CGI did not exist in 1945. There are also thousands of eyewitness testimonies of the blasts from locals in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I live in Japan, not far from Nagasaki and have been to both ground zeroes where there are now museums. There is even a wall with the silhouette of a victim caught in the blast. There is no record of any large fleet of aircraft that could have done the carpet bombing and eyewitness testimony confirms it.
If nuclear weapons were a fairy tale any country could say they have nuclear weapons. And we also have the IAEA that goes around and inspects nuclear facilities. Nuclear weapons testing is also confirmed by earthquake monitors. The shock wave from Russia 50 megaton "Tsar Bomba" was measured circling the globe 3 times. There is also eyewitness testimony from people living in Nevada that saw the mushroom clouds from nuclear testing. People used to make a day of it and have BBQs outside diners and such things.
Quite a few reasons. Firstly, Hiroshima caused 10x the amount of cancer related deaths than Chernobyl (4,000 cases vs 40,000+). It was VERY dangerous to live in Hiroshima in the years after the bomb was dropped. Secondly, when a nuclear reactor explodes it produces a different kind of radiation than a nuclear bomb. There are differences in the half-life, and the isotopes undergo exponential decay at different rates. Chernobyl put 400 times the amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere than the bomb dropped on Chernobyl. You have to remember that Chernobyl burned for weeks, spewing out radioactive material the whole time. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima lasted a few seconds. It was also an air-burst that didn't cause a large amount of radioactive fallout.
In the Chernobyl incident the radioactive contamination was concentrated around the facility and as the cloud travelled and dispersed the contamination became more diluted. Most people were evacuated quickly and that's why we see less cancer in Chernobyl than Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Also, the bomb was dropped on a city of quarter of a million people so many more people received a deadly dose of radiation.
Being air-burst bombs, their was little fallout. The bomb vaporized immediately and the radiation was spread out over a huge area in all directions, diluting with dispersal.
Lastly, Little Boy, as Hiroshima's atom is known, was 50kg of uranium-235. At Chernobyl 180 TONS of uranium went up, along with waste products like cesium-134 and iodine-131. Those waste products have a lot longer exponential decay. Whereas that radioactive decay from the Hiroshima air-burst was short. In fact, it was considered habitable in terms of radiation levels in just a few months. That's why the Chernobyl explosion released 400 times the radiation and the immediate vicinity irradiated for thousands of years to come.
That's not to say life was easy in Hiroshima. Along with the cancer problem, pregnant women exposed to the gamma radiation suffered from miscarriages and infant mortality. Many that did survive childbirth also got cancer and a whole host problems that would impair them their whole lives.
I've been down the "nuclear weapons are a myth" rabbit hole. I've read Miles Mathis. There is nothing there. Those that expound this theory have never been to Nagasaki or Hiroshima and don't understand the physics (or chemistry). The world is also not flat and Tartaria is a joke. I've been immersed in this world for decades ever since the old Coast To Coast days and I'm pretty passionate about, as I'm sure you and Skidmark are. Governments lie, we all know that, but not everything is a lie. Science has gotten a bad rap lately but it also gave us electricity, cars, planes, refrigeration, air conditioning and yes, nuclear power (I'm not sure it put us on the Moon though!). You have to have some kind of base reality or you're just flapping in the wind.
Ok, thanks. I will translate it if only to offer a different point of view, plus food for thought. About nuclear weapons, although I don't have a dog in this fight:
The pros:
- "There are also thousands of eyewitness testimonies of the blasts from locals in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.": despite a few discrepancies, those witnesses accounts are rather convincing, I'll give you that.
- "Nuclear weapons testing is also confirmed by earthquake monitors. The shock wave from Russia 50 megaton "Tsar Bomba" was measured circling the globe 3 times.": ok, fair enough. Not impossible to falsify, though.
The cons:
- "From a physics standpoint the pathway from nuclear reactors to nuclear weapons is undeniable.": from what I've read, my understanding is that thoses processes are very different. I can't see how one could lead to another - but I'm not a scientist.
-"There is also video footage of the atom bombs being dropped on Japan, taken from one of the bombers.": the footage of the bombing I've seen does not match the official narrative - the time of the day, notably. That's a problem.
- "CGI did not exist in 1945.": no, but special effects did. A huge TNT explosion caught on a high-speed camera would not be very difficult to arrange and would do the trick quite nicely. I don't have to remind you that they "rehearsed" the atomic blast with a TNT one - if this makes sense, I don't understand how.
- "There is even a wall with the silhouette of a victim caught in the blast.": the silhouette thing is beyond absurd, there is no science whatsoever that could explain it.
- "There is no record of any large fleet of aircraft that could have done the carpet bombing and eyewitness testimony confirms it.": if a large aircraft fleet was dispatched on that day, it wouldn't be on the record for obvious reasons. Both towns sitting conveniently next to the seashore, the Japanese army would not have seen it coming in - as for the inhabitants, I don't know.
- " There is also eyewitness testimony from people living in Nevada that saw the mushroom clouds from nuclear testing.": yup, although what they saw was just a huge explosion from afar.
But the most relevant question of all is this: if nuclear tests were real, why oh why is all the footage from the fifties, without a single exception, blatanly fake, to the point of amateurish? As far as how the cameras were not destroyed along with everything else, I have read this explanation:
"Keep in mind this footage was broadcast on television more than half a century ago. Also the footage and photos were captured in several different ways. For the high speed camera photos they had a rig that a Bell and Howell camera was suspended from, the film canister was inside a lead-lined case to protect the film from radiation. This was before digital communication so the camera had a wire that transmitted the images to a bunker farther back at a safe distance. The rig would release the camera the moment before the explosion, since the camera was in free-fall the vibrations sent through the ground from the explosion didn't interfere with the image. These high speed cameras in fact did not survive the explosion, they were obliterated, but the data sent through the wire to the bunker survived. You should look up these photos, they're really something. As for the regular speed video footage a lot of times the cameras were inside a little bunker with a reinforced porthole, basically a pillbox. Half buried and sturdy."
A *film* camera that sends signal through a wire? So either it's a television camera of a film camera, not both. Next, the cameras were in free fall but somehow the image is not blurred. Then, the cameras were obliterated but obligingly stayed intact until *after* they filmed the buildings being destroyed. Don't you think you are being a little played here?
This is just cherry picking. The evidence is overwhelming. I don't see anything fake in those videos that were broadcast at the advent of television. Hundreds of thousands of people have seen the tests. Some were a hundred miles away and saw the flash. My mother-in-law's family was from Nagasaki and had to move to Saga prefecture after the bombing. Her mother was 25 at the time of the bombing and spoke about that day as have tens of thousands. Some even saw the bomb being dropped and fall. All recalled just one massive blast, no fleet of planes dropping thousands of tons of ordinance like what happened in the Tokyo carpet bombing in March 1945. You discount the testimony of tens of thousands of people and your only argument is that the videos are fake.
You don't know how fissile material is extracted from nuclear reactors. The only "con" is that you are not studied in this field. That's fine, because not many are. Plutonium is not a natural ore like uranium. Plutonium-239 is created by the fissioning of uranium-235 in a nuclear reactor. The fissioning produces neutrons that are absorbed by uranium-238 to produce plutonium-239. Weapons-grade plutonium is only around 5%, and this is governed by it contamination with isotope plutonium-240. Therefore most modern nuclear weapons use plutonium because it's easier to create large amounts from uranium reactors.
This is why there is a lot of concern in the West about Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program. They don't have any nuclear reactors and therefore to make a bomb they have to enrich uranium which basically means separating the uranium-235 from the other uranium isotopes (mostly uranium-238). If none of this mattered Iran could say it has a nuclear bomb but they can't because we know where plutonium comes from and Iran doesn't have nuclear reactors. Why would Iran build a facility into the side of a mountain to house the thousands of centrifuges it takes to enrich uranium? Why go to all that trouble when they can just say they have a nuclear bomb? Why don't other countries say they have the bomb? I'll tell you why. Because you have to prove you have one by testing it. Like North Korea has done. And those tests are picked up by seismic monitors. The only country that has never tested a nuclear bomb but is widely thought to have one is Israel. They didn't need to test it to see if it worked because they stole the plans for working nukes from the US.
Lastly, the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki at 11am in the morning. There is footage. It's not great and looks dark but you can clearly see it's daylight. You can see the shadow of the mushroom cloud. The plane that dropped the bomb took off from Tinian in the Pacific along with 2 other planes. They rendezvoused at Yakushima island which is just south of Kyushu. The planes then had transverse the whole of Kyushu before arriving at the first target, the town of Kokura. Any large formation of planes would have flown this route. And the Hiroshima bombing had to at least traverse Shikoku. Your Japanese geography is not great, hah. The airfields in China were too far. The firebombing of Tokyo, carried out by over 300 B-29s, came in from the Marianas (where Tinian is). By August 1945 huge formations of B-29s were commonplace over the skies of Japan. In fact, Nagasaki was bombed instead of Kokura due to the smoke from the bombing of nearby Yahata the day before. Japanese people alive at the time and mostly gone now remembered 1945 very well. It was a terrifying time with most Japanese cities bombed by hundreds of B-29s. And yet in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no reports of squadrons of 100s of B-29s. My god man, this didn't happen in the stone age, it was mere decades ago and well documented. Your belief in this bullshit conspiracy is an insult and an affront to the 120 million people of Japan. And I even talked to one survivor before her death in 1998. I implore you read eye-witness testimony and you'll find they all describe one bomb, one blinding light. I'm sure there are many videos of people talking about it too.
"The silhouette thing is beyond absurd, there is no science whatsoever that could explain it." - Really? Very few remain but a few were preserved including the famous one of someone on the steps of a bank. The scientific theory is that the flash bleached the stone surfaces so the silhouettes are what the surface looked like before the blast. Again, your ignorance is an insult to 120,000 people that died on those 2 horrible days.
Believe what you want, man. I don't care if you don't believe in nuclear weapons. I believe in many conspiracies too. But this one just pisses me off because one of these bombs killed most of my wife's mother's family and I've lived in this beautiful country for half of my life. I'm giving you facts, history and science and you're giving me "those videos are fake dude". Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
If there is a regional war, this atheist believes Israel will be defeated. Their nukes won't save them.
The demise of the Zionist project will claim the lives of millions, mostly non-atheists. And I'm okay with that. Ye reap what ye sow, true believers.
What a waste, mostly because the human ape cannot accept it's own mortality. It has to invent narratives about reincarnation, an afterlife, a god with anger management issues masquerading as "love", and a bevy of beautiful virgins. Or gorgeous house cats. The half of humanity not fixated on virginity is rarely heard from on these divine matters, so I'm guessing they might prefer house cats.
If there's no regional war, you have my condolences.
While I'm not an atheist, I definitely think the world would be a better place if the Abrahamic religions were deposited in the dustbin of history. Future humans will look back at some periods in the Age of Pisces with embarrassment.
The ways in which we rewrite history may have future humans looking back and feeling pride. Any number of interpretations are possible. We have yet to develop record-keeping technology that could prevent inaccurate portrayals of the past.
How do we feel about people who lived 2000 years ago?
Is there a difference between what a historian feels and the layman?
Well that's put Turkey further down my list for next year's holiday, then.
Seriously though, thank you for touching on such a deep and touchy subject. One of many questions I have is about the US. Do you think there are people running that country who are not part of this global elite who have secretly been running things for centuries? A US "elite", who are concerned about the US and it's position in the world and are not going to go along with the New World Order?
For sure true patriots do exist. And most "elites" that do have positions of power don't even know they are being manipulated. It's a massive and complex web of organizations and societies. Even Zionism was created by them in the 19th century to tether the US to Israel's destiny - which is to start the penultimate war.
I wrote another comment on your other post Laurence, but this one also motivated me to comment - it's downright spooky watching you figuring all this out, it's like getting a window back in time to me a year or so back having all the pieces but not yet able to see the picture (or indeed knowing that there was a completely coherent picture that they fit together into), I simply couldn't comprehend what I was looking at and was desperately trying to force it into a scientific/materialist mold which it wouldn't fit into (and it never will).
You know so much, yet you are so far from the truth, and simultaneously you're about 2 minutes away from it all making complete sense. What you're looking at is the book of Revelation, and yes it's really happening, no rational argument can be made that human beings (no matter how powerful, connected or organised) could orchestrate all this.
I believe it is being orchestrated because God doesn't interfere in the ways of man. It is why we were given free will and so much evil is allowed to happen and so many prayers are not answered. May I ask if you also believe in the pre-trib rapture?
Yes and no - I believe also that God does not interfere with human free will (well, perhaps I believe something very subtly different from that, in that I believe he intervenes at times, but that intervention doesn't change the direction people have chosen, so more or less you could say I believe God doesn't impinge human free will).
You can't rationally argue that they're acting out Bible prophecy however, there's just too much that's coming together so neatly, much of it extremely difficult (verging on impossible) to humanly control, and once you dig enough and see enough evidence I believe it conclusively rules out a Masonic/Jesuit/Occultist performance, but like I said, I entertained that idea for a while, because it was just so mindblowing to see.
Yes, I do believe in the pre-trib rapture, albeit there are somewhat reasonable arguments for a pre-wrath rapture as well which I wouldn't completely dismiss. The rapture is completely scriptural and was taught by Jesus himself, by Paul and is shown in types and shadows in the OT, in Revelation and probably various other places I've forgotten, it's one of the most attacked doctrines, and I always find the heuristic of looking for what's most attacked by the mainstream then investigating that with a view to it probably being true to be a reliable one.
The rapture was invented by Zionist Jews through John Darby in the 19th century (1830) to trick Christians into accepting the horrible shit they would do during the End Times. It was then popularized in the Schofield Reference Bible. Pre-tribulation rapture did not exist before 1830 and is not taught in the oldest Christian faiths - Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
The rapture is a "feature" that exposes all religions as fraud. Jesus would not recognise Christianity as like all religions it morphed and changed over time. First there was the Roman church and the Eastern Orthodox, then the Church of England (that Henry VIII invented so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon). Then the came the Dispensationalists. All teach Christianity with their own twist. The Rapture is heresy to the original forms of Christianity.
I went to a Roman Catholic school so yes, I know my bible. Every passage in the Bible that Rapturists use to advocate their belief is about the second coming of Christ.
I can prove that John Darby invented rapture theology. His Plymouth Brethren church admit it.
"A number of doctrines that are now widely held within evangelical circles were first discovered by the Brethren (post 1830 AD) or were promoted and propagated by the Brethren. In no particular order these include: pre-tribulational rapture, dispensationalism" (Plymouth Brethren: Theological contributions of the Brethren: FAQ #16).
Why did the church not teach the rapture before 1830? Are we to believe it was there in the most studied book of the past 2 millennia and the thousands of theologians just missed it?
It's just one more made up thing on top of hundreds more that just accumulated over the years. Mostly due to mistranslation and of course, editing. And the very human interaction that created the canon at The First Council of Nicaea. And the Bible according to KJV is not the same Bible as used by some Orthodox churches. They include apocrypha such as The Book of Enoch who's book was not allowed even though he was the great-grandfather of Noah and was widely read during the Second Temple period.
Christianity is very much a human invention. None of it is the Word Of God. And it's full of contradictions as I've pointed out.
Sorry but IMO you're absolutely a mile off here, and I too have been through the whole Darby and dispensationalism rabbit hole, so I do know whereof I speak. The early church absolutely believed in the rapture, indeed some of them thought they'd missed it. The rapture wasn't "invented" at some later point, it's absolutely core to the gospel in fact - without the "blessed hope" the rest of it wouldn't make any sense, is Jesus going to beat up his bride just before the wedding supper? Are those of us who are not appointed to wrath going to go through it anyway? The rapture is woven through the entire scriptures and appears in types and shadows in numerous OT books. Indeed, if you get this, you'll get why the "aliens" narrative has ramped up so hard over the past few years and continues to be predictively programmed.
I'm not surprised a Catholic education has taught against it, but Catholicism and the early church have about as much to do with each other as chalk and cheese - I presume you're familiar with Catholic imagery and the way the Sumerian-Akadian-Babylonian-Egyptian-Roman "trinity" just keeps showing up different places - Constantine didn't legalise Christianity, he simply put a Christian facade on top of their pagan beliefs because killing Christians wasn't working so it was better to subvert and misdirect them. If you read the KJV rather than a corrupt translation and understand that two events are being described, one of which involves Jesus standing on the Mount of Olives and the other which doesn't, it's unmissable.
Ah, don't worry. I know Catholicism is a bastardization of Christianity, just like the Anglican offshoots in the States. ;)
And sorry, you are simply wrong. The rapture was never taught in the early Church. When you read the Bible that is your "interpretation", just as it was Darby's. And therein lays the problem with the Bible as a whole. So much of it is vague it's completely open to interpretation. One school of thought says Revelation has already been fulfilled for example.
Even Darby said the whole rapture thing just "popped into his head". Again proving that he did invent it. I'm giving you proofs from the horse's mouth and the burden of proof shouldn't even be on me. I challenge you to prove that the rapture existed before 1830. And please don't try and mention Morgan Edwards' short essay at Bristol Baptist College in 1744.
Dispensationalism, premillennialism, the rapture - they are all provably false teachings and it's a shame you have been deceived in this way. If you read the Bible and interpret certain passages to mean pre-tribulation rapture, how can one trust that anything you say about the Bible is true. This is why it was my first question to you. It's the quick and easy litmus test. I mean, all Christians are deceived, but their hearts can still be pure. Rapturists are the children of Baal. I could prove this further by asking what your stance is on the Israel genocide of Gaza. But I think we both know the answer to that question already.
Hello again!
For the record, I'm the one who translated your article https://renegademind.substack.com/p/a-cold-dark-winter-is-coming into French http://skidmark.blog/2022/09/28/un-hiver-froid-et-sombre-sannonce-par-laurence-flynn/. And a very good article it was, too. Now I might do the same with this one, if you don't mind, because it definitely has merit.
Then, after the obligatory disclaimer "I'm not a historian/scientist, but", may I just throw in something in, just for the sake of, well, I don't know - my own education?
First, I have read a great deal of Anatoly Fomenko's work and my main take away is this: *all* sacred texts are actually ancient astronomical descriptions and forecastings recycled into Earthbound mythologies and hagiographies of mainly fictionalized/romanticized historical characters - the main one being Christ, obviously - who are supposed to have lived in places that don't have anything to do with their actual denomination - the main one being Jerusalem, which is actually a *concept* rather than an actual city - in times that are chronogically severely ill-defined. Those ancient texts are also not so ancient, either, the Bible having been written up until the XVIth century. So, prophecies, self-fulfilling or not, are at best misintepretations, at worst, scams. I realize that the notion that History is the mother of all scams might not go down well with you being an historian - but there it is. Please don't spare my feelings.
Second, there isn't such a thing as a "nuclear weapon". I first dug into that rabbit hole through Miles Mathis (original article here http://mileswmathis.com/trinity.pdf, my translation here http://skidmark.blog/2022/08/10/le-canular-nucleaire-par-miles-mathis/), meaning that Hiroshima and Nagazaki were wooden cities carpet bombed with incendiary bombs. You can find all manners of picture analysis on the Net that all seem to prove it. I have since bumped into more scientific ways to argue the point, and they all seem to hold water pretty well. I'm sure there are very powerful conventional weapons to bomb whole countries into oblivion, but nuclear Armageddon is just one more fairy tale in a long list of fairy tales.
Thanks for your comment and feel free to translate the article.
I can assure you that nuclear weapons exist. From a physics standpoint the pathway from nuclear reactors to nuclear weapons is undeniable. There is also video footage of the atom bombs being dropped on Japan, taken from one of the bombers. CGI did not exist in 1945. There are also thousands of eyewitness testimonies of the blasts from locals in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I live in Japan, not far from Nagasaki and have been to both ground zeroes where there are now museums. There is even a wall with the silhouette of a victim caught in the blast. There is no record of any large fleet of aircraft that could have done the carpet bombing and eyewitness testimony confirms it.
If nuclear weapons were a fairy tale any country could say they have nuclear weapons. And we also have the IAEA that goes around and inspects nuclear facilities. Nuclear weapons testing is also confirmed by earthquake monitors. The shock wave from Russia 50 megaton "Tsar Bomba" was measured circling the globe 3 times. There is also eyewitness testimony from people living in Nevada that saw the mushroom clouds from nuclear testing. People used to make a day of it and have BBQs outside diners and such things.
But how come these areas are not radioactive and too dangerous for people to inhabit? Chernoble was cleared after their disaster.
Quite a few reasons. Firstly, Hiroshima caused 10x the amount of cancer related deaths than Chernobyl (4,000 cases vs 40,000+). It was VERY dangerous to live in Hiroshima in the years after the bomb was dropped. Secondly, when a nuclear reactor explodes it produces a different kind of radiation than a nuclear bomb. There are differences in the half-life, and the isotopes undergo exponential decay at different rates. Chernobyl put 400 times the amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere than the bomb dropped on Chernobyl. You have to remember that Chernobyl burned for weeks, spewing out radioactive material the whole time. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima lasted a few seconds. It was also an air-burst that didn't cause a large amount of radioactive fallout.
In the Chernobyl incident the radioactive contamination was concentrated around the facility and as the cloud travelled and dispersed the contamination became more diluted. Most people were evacuated quickly and that's why we see less cancer in Chernobyl than Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Also, the bomb was dropped on a city of quarter of a million people so many more people received a deadly dose of radiation.
Being air-burst bombs, their was little fallout. The bomb vaporized immediately and the radiation was spread out over a huge area in all directions, diluting with dispersal.
Lastly, Little Boy, as Hiroshima's atom is known, was 50kg of uranium-235. At Chernobyl 180 TONS of uranium went up, along with waste products like cesium-134 and iodine-131. Those waste products have a lot longer exponential decay. Whereas that radioactive decay from the Hiroshima air-burst was short. In fact, it was considered habitable in terms of radiation levels in just a few months. That's why the Chernobyl explosion released 400 times the radiation and the immediate vicinity irradiated for thousands of years to come.
That's not to say life was easy in Hiroshima. Along with the cancer problem, pregnant women exposed to the gamma radiation suffered from miscarriages and infant mortality. Many that did survive childbirth also got cancer and a whole host problems that would impair them their whole lives.
I've been down the "nuclear weapons are a myth" rabbit hole. I've read Miles Mathis. There is nothing there. Those that expound this theory have never been to Nagasaki or Hiroshima and don't understand the physics (or chemistry). The world is also not flat and Tartaria is a joke. I've been immersed in this world for decades ever since the old Coast To Coast days and I'm pretty passionate about, as I'm sure you and Skidmark are. Governments lie, we all know that, but not everything is a lie. Science has gotten a bad rap lately but it also gave us electricity, cars, planes, refrigeration, air conditioning and yes, nuclear power (I'm not sure it put us on the Moon though!). You have to have some kind of base reality or you're just flapping in the wind.
Happy to discuss more.
Ok, thanks. I will translate it if only to offer a different point of view, plus food for thought. About nuclear weapons, although I don't have a dog in this fight:
The pros:
- "There are also thousands of eyewitness testimonies of the blasts from locals in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.": despite a few discrepancies, those witnesses accounts are rather convincing, I'll give you that.
- "Nuclear weapons testing is also confirmed by earthquake monitors. The shock wave from Russia 50 megaton "Tsar Bomba" was measured circling the globe 3 times.": ok, fair enough. Not impossible to falsify, though.
The cons:
- "From a physics standpoint the pathway from nuclear reactors to nuclear weapons is undeniable.": from what I've read, my understanding is that thoses processes are very different. I can't see how one could lead to another - but I'm not a scientist.
-"There is also video footage of the atom bombs being dropped on Japan, taken from one of the bombers.": the footage of the bombing I've seen does not match the official narrative - the time of the day, notably. That's a problem.
- "CGI did not exist in 1945.": no, but special effects did. A huge TNT explosion caught on a high-speed camera would not be very difficult to arrange and would do the trick quite nicely. I don't have to remind you that they "rehearsed" the atomic blast with a TNT one - if this makes sense, I don't understand how.
- "There is even a wall with the silhouette of a victim caught in the blast.": the silhouette thing is beyond absurd, there is no science whatsoever that could explain it.
- "There is no record of any large fleet of aircraft that could have done the carpet bombing and eyewitness testimony confirms it.": if a large aircraft fleet was dispatched on that day, it wouldn't be on the record for obvious reasons. Both towns sitting conveniently next to the seashore, the Japanese army would not have seen it coming in - as for the inhabitants, I don't know.
- " There is also eyewitness testimony from people living in Nevada that saw the mushroom clouds from nuclear testing.": yup, although what they saw was just a huge explosion from afar.
But the most relevant question of all is this: if nuclear tests were real, why oh why is all the footage from the fifties, without a single exception, blatanly fake, to the point of amateurish? As far as how the cameras were not destroyed along with everything else, I have read this explanation:
"Keep in mind this footage was broadcast on television more than half a century ago. Also the footage and photos were captured in several different ways. For the high speed camera photos they had a rig that a Bell and Howell camera was suspended from, the film canister was inside a lead-lined case to protect the film from radiation. This was before digital communication so the camera had a wire that transmitted the images to a bunker farther back at a safe distance. The rig would release the camera the moment before the explosion, since the camera was in free-fall the vibrations sent through the ground from the explosion didn't interfere with the image. These high speed cameras in fact did not survive the explosion, they were obliterated, but the data sent through the wire to the bunker survived. You should look up these photos, they're really something. As for the regular speed video footage a lot of times the cameras were inside a little bunker with a reinforced porthole, basically a pillbox. Half buried and sturdy."
A *film* camera that sends signal through a wire? So either it's a television camera of a film camera, not both. Next, the cameras were in free fall but somehow the image is not blurred. Then, the cameras were obliterated but obligingly stayed intact until *after* they filmed the buildings being destroyed. Don't you think you are being a little played here?
This is Hollywood B-grade-ish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXg2P9dx-GM
This is downright embarrassing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1HkyHHmrgY
That settles it for me.
This is just cherry picking. The evidence is overwhelming. I don't see anything fake in those videos that were broadcast at the advent of television. Hundreds of thousands of people have seen the tests. Some were a hundred miles away and saw the flash. My mother-in-law's family was from Nagasaki and had to move to Saga prefecture after the bombing. Her mother was 25 at the time of the bombing and spoke about that day as have tens of thousands. Some even saw the bomb being dropped and fall. All recalled just one massive blast, no fleet of planes dropping thousands of tons of ordinance like what happened in the Tokyo carpet bombing in March 1945. You discount the testimony of tens of thousands of people and your only argument is that the videos are fake.
You don't know how fissile material is extracted from nuclear reactors. The only "con" is that you are not studied in this field. That's fine, because not many are. Plutonium is not a natural ore like uranium. Plutonium-239 is created by the fissioning of uranium-235 in a nuclear reactor. The fissioning produces neutrons that are absorbed by uranium-238 to produce plutonium-239. Weapons-grade plutonium is only around 5%, and this is governed by it contamination with isotope plutonium-240. Therefore most modern nuclear weapons use plutonium because it's easier to create large amounts from uranium reactors.
This is why there is a lot of concern in the West about Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program. They don't have any nuclear reactors and therefore to make a bomb they have to enrich uranium which basically means separating the uranium-235 from the other uranium isotopes (mostly uranium-238). If none of this mattered Iran could say it has a nuclear bomb but they can't because we know where plutonium comes from and Iran doesn't have nuclear reactors. Why would Iran build a facility into the side of a mountain to house the thousands of centrifuges it takes to enrich uranium? Why go to all that trouble when they can just say they have a nuclear bomb? Why don't other countries say they have the bomb? I'll tell you why. Because you have to prove you have one by testing it. Like North Korea has done. And those tests are picked up by seismic monitors. The only country that has never tested a nuclear bomb but is widely thought to have one is Israel. They didn't need to test it to see if it worked because they stole the plans for working nukes from the US.
Lastly, the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki at 11am in the morning. There is footage. It's not great and looks dark but you can clearly see it's daylight. You can see the shadow of the mushroom cloud. The plane that dropped the bomb took off from Tinian in the Pacific along with 2 other planes. They rendezvoused at Yakushima island which is just south of Kyushu. The planes then had transverse the whole of Kyushu before arriving at the first target, the town of Kokura. Any large formation of planes would have flown this route. And the Hiroshima bombing had to at least traverse Shikoku. Your Japanese geography is not great, hah. The airfields in China were too far. The firebombing of Tokyo, carried out by over 300 B-29s, came in from the Marianas (where Tinian is). By August 1945 huge formations of B-29s were commonplace over the skies of Japan. In fact, Nagasaki was bombed instead of Kokura due to the smoke from the bombing of nearby Yahata the day before. Japanese people alive at the time and mostly gone now remembered 1945 very well. It was a terrifying time with most Japanese cities bombed by hundreds of B-29s. And yet in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no reports of squadrons of 100s of B-29s. My god man, this didn't happen in the stone age, it was mere decades ago and well documented. Your belief in this bullshit conspiracy is an insult and an affront to the 120 million people of Japan. And I even talked to one survivor before her death in 1998. I implore you read eye-witness testimony and you'll find they all describe one bomb, one blinding light. I'm sure there are many videos of people talking about it too.
"The silhouette thing is beyond absurd, there is no science whatsoever that could explain it." - Really? Very few remain but a few were preserved including the famous one of someone on the steps of a bank. The scientific theory is that the flash bleached the stone surfaces so the silhouettes are what the surface looked like before the blast. Again, your ignorance is an insult to 120,000 people that died on those 2 horrible days.
Believe what you want, man. I don't care if you don't believe in nuclear weapons. I believe in many conspiracies too. But this one just pisses me off because one of these bombs killed most of my wife's mother's family and I've lived in this beautiful country for half of my life. I'm giving you facts, history and science and you're giving me "those videos are fake dude". Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
If there is a regional war, this atheist believes Israel will be defeated. Their nukes won't save them.
The demise of the Zionist project will claim the lives of millions, mostly non-atheists. And I'm okay with that. Ye reap what ye sow, true believers.
What a waste, mostly because the human ape cannot accept it's own mortality. It has to invent narratives about reincarnation, an afterlife, a god with anger management issues masquerading as "love", and a bevy of beautiful virgins. Or gorgeous house cats. The half of humanity not fixated on virginity is rarely heard from on these divine matters, so I'm guessing they might prefer house cats.
If there's no regional war, you have my condolences.
While I'm not an atheist, I definitely think the world would be a better place if the Abrahamic religions were deposited in the dustbin of history. Future humans will look back at some periods in the Age of Pisces with embarrassment.
The ways in which we rewrite history may have future humans looking back and feeling pride. Any number of interpretations are possible. We have yet to develop record-keeping technology that could prevent inaccurate portrayals of the past.
How do we feel about people who lived 2000 years ago?
Is there a difference between what a historian feels and the layman?
I hope you're right. I don't see a pathway to such a future without a lot of carnage though. :(
Well that's put Turkey further down my list for next year's holiday, then.
Seriously though, thank you for touching on such a deep and touchy subject. One of many questions I have is about the US. Do you think there are people running that country who are not part of this global elite who have secretly been running things for centuries? A US "elite", who are concerned about the US and it's position in the world and are not going to go along with the New World Order?
For sure true patriots do exist. And most "elites" that do have positions of power don't even know they are being manipulated. It's a massive and complex web of organizations and societies. Even Zionism was created by them in the 19th century to tether the US to Israel's destiny - which is to start the penultimate war.
Interesting. Have you read the Christian/Gnostic science fiction of Philip K. Dick? I think you would enjoy his novels Valis and The Divine Invasion.
Thanks. Will definitely check these out. I'm a huge SF fan and know the name.
I wrote another comment on your other post Laurence, but this one also motivated me to comment - it's downright spooky watching you figuring all this out, it's like getting a window back in time to me a year or so back having all the pieces but not yet able to see the picture (or indeed knowing that there was a completely coherent picture that they fit together into), I simply couldn't comprehend what I was looking at and was desperately trying to force it into a scientific/materialist mold which it wouldn't fit into (and it never will).
You know so much, yet you are so far from the truth, and simultaneously you're about 2 minutes away from it all making complete sense. What you're looking at is the book of Revelation, and yes it's really happening, no rational argument can be made that human beings (no matter how powerful, connected or organised) could orchestrate all this.
I believe it is being orchestrated because God doesn't interfere in the ways of man. It is why we were given free will and so much evil is allowed to happen and so many prayers are not answered. May I ask if you also believe in the pre-trib rapture?
Yes and no - I believe also that God does not interfere with human free will (well, perhaps I believe something very subtly different from that, in that I believe he intervenes at times, but that intervention doesn't change the direction people have chosen, so more or less you could say I believe God doesn't impinge human free will).
You can't rationally argue that they're acting out Bible prophecy however, there's just too much that's coming together so neatly, much of it extremely difficult (verging on impossible) to humanly control, and once you dig enough and see enough evidence I believe it conclusively rules out a Masonic/Jesuit/Occultist performance, but like I said, I entertained that idea for a while, because it was just so mindblowing to see.
Yes, I do believe in the pre-trib rapture, albeit there are somewhat reasonable arguments for a pre-wrath rapture as well which I wouldn't completely dismiss. The rapture is completely scriptural and was taught by Jesus himself, by Paul and is shown in types and shadows in the OT, in Revelation and probably various other places I've forgotten, it's one of the most attacked doctrines, and I always find the heuristic of looking for what's most attacked by the mainstream then investigating that with a view to it probably being true to be a reliable one.
The rapture was invented by Zionist Jews through John Darby in the 19th century (1830) to trick Christians into accepting the horrible shit they would do during the End Times. It was then popularized in the Schofield Reference Bible. Pre-tribulation rapture did not exist before 1830 and is not taught in the oldest Christian faiths - Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
The rapture is a "feature" that exposes all religions as fraud. Jesus would not recognise Christianity as like all religions it morphed and changed over time. First there was the Roman church and the Eastern Orthodox, then the Church of England (that Henry VIII invented so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon). Then the came the Dispensationalists. All teach Christianity with their own twist. The Rapture is heresy to the original forms of Christianity.
I went to a Roman Catholic school so yes, I know my bible. Every passage in the Bible that Rapturists use to advocate their belief is about the second coming of Christ.
I can prove that John Darby invented rapture theology. His Plymouth Brethren church admit it.
"A number of doctrines that are now widely held within evangelical circles were first discovered by the Brethren (post 1830 AD) or were promoted and propagated by the Brethren. In no particular order these include: pre-tribulational rapture, dispensationalism" (Plymouth Brethren: Theological contributions of the Brethren: FAQ #16).
Why did the church not teach the rapture before 1830? Are we to believe it was there in the most studied book of the past 2 millennia and the thousands of theologians just missed it?
It's just one more made up thing on top of hundreds more that just accumulated over the years. Mostly due to mistranslation and of course, editing. And the very human interaction that created the canon at The First Council of Nicaea. And the Bible according to KJV is not the same Bible as used by some Orthodox churches. They include apocrypha such as The Book of Enoch who's book was not allowed even though he was the great-grandfather of Noah and was widely read during the Second Temple period.
Christianity is very much a human invention. None of it is the Word Of God. And it's full of contradictions as I've pointed out.
Sorry but IMO you're absolutely a mile off here, and I too have been through the whole Darby and dispensationalism rabbit hole, so I do know whereof I speak. The early church absolutely believed in the rapture, indeed some of them thought they'd missed it. The rapture wasn't "invented" at some later point, it's absolutely core to the gospel in fact - without the "blessed hope" the rest of it wouldn't make any sense, is Jesus going to beat up his bride just before the wedding supper? Are those of us who are not appointed to wrath going to go through it anyway? The rapture is woven through the entire scriptures and appears in types and shadows in numerous OT books. Indeed, if you get this, you'll get why the "aliens" narrative has ramped up so hard over the past few years and continues to be predictively programmed.
I'm not surprised a Catholic education has taught against it, but Catholicism and the early church have about as much to do with each other as chalk and cheese - I presume you're familiar with Catholic imagery and the way the Sumerian-Akadian-Babylonian-Egyptian-Roman "trinity" just keeps showing up different places - Constantine didn't legalise Christianity, he simply put a Christian facade on top of their pagan beliefs because killing Christians wasn't working so it was better to subvert and misdirect them. If you read the KJV rather than a corrupt translation and understand that two events are being described, one of which involves Jesus standing on the Mount of Olives and the other which doesn't, it's unmissable.
Ah, don't worry. I know Catholicism is a bastardization of Christianity, just like the Anglican offshoots in the States. ;)
And sorry, you are simply wrong. The rapture was never taught in the early Church. When you read the Bible that is your "interpretation", just as it was Darby's. And therein lays the problem with the Bible as a whole. So much of it is vague it's completely open to interpretation. One school of thought says Revelation has already been fulfilled for example.
Even Darby said the whole rapture thing just "popped into his head". Again proving that he did invent it. I'm giving you proofs from the horse's mouth and the burden of proof shouldn't even be on me. I challenge you to prove that the rapture existed before 1830. And please don't try and mention Morgan Edwards' short essay at Bristol Baptist College in 1744.
Dispensationalism, premillennialism, the rapture - they are all provably false teachings and it's a shame you have been deceived in this way. If you read the Bible and interpret certain passages to mean pre-tribulation rapture, how can one trust that anything you say about the Bible is true. This is why it was my first question to you. It's the quick and easy litmus test. I mean, all Christians are deceived, but their hearts can still be pure. Rapturists are the children of Baal. I could prove this further by asking what your stance is on the Israel genocide of Gaza. But I think we both know the answer to that question already.