Do atomic bombs exist?
January 26, 2024 in News by RBN Staff
Questioning the Nuclear Weapon Narrative
Do atomic bombs exist?
Alexander P. de Seversky was a Russian-American pilot and also an eminent aeronautical engineer. After the end of World War II, he was sent on an official mission to report on the results of the Allied bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan. On this tour, he also visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He describes his impressions from this visit in his work Air Power: Key to Survival:
“I was keyed up for my first view of an atom-bombed city, prepared for the radically new sights suggested by the exciting descriptions I had read and heard. But to my utter astonishment, Hiroshima from the air looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities I had observed!”
[…]
“For two days I examined Hiroshima. I looked for the bald spot … it wasn’t there.”
[…]
“I searched for other traces of phenomena that could reasonably be tagged ‘unusual.’ I couldn’t find them.”
Indeed, we find that cities that were firebombed look very similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
An aerial view of Tokyo after it was firebombed in 1945:
Akio Nakatani, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, states in his book Death Object: Exploding the Nuclear Weapons Hoax:
“The key deal breaker for the orthodox story of atomic Hiroshima is the fact that there was no ‘bald spot’. The damage was uniform to the perimeters, exactly as in a typical firebombing raid.”
What about radiation?
In his book Hiroshima Revisited, Dr. Michael Palmer MD writes;
“Studies from neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki furnish any clear evidence of radioactive fallout commensurate with the purported nuclear detonations.”
The Hiroshima City website states:
“The radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today is on a par with the extremely low levels of background radiation (natural radioactivity) present anywhere on Earth.”
What about sickness and disease from radiation?
Colonel Ashley Oughterson MD, on radiation effects in Hiroshima:
“It is . . . difficult to explain the complete absence of radiation effects in . . . people who were theoretically exposed to lethal dosages of radiation.”
Oughterson headed the medical “Joint Commission” that investigated the aftermath of the bombings. A short time after writing down these words, he died in a plane crash in Colombia. Three of the other six American MDs who served on the commission also died before their time.
In Hiroshima Revisited, Palmer looks at witness testimonies as well as clinical and pathological findings, and presents evidence that mustard gas (in addition to napalm) was used during the bombings. He states:
“Medical arguments alone suffice to unambiguously reject the story of the atomic bombs. At the same time, they provide strong support for mustard gas and napalm as essential components of the massacre.”
It is not unreasonable to suspect that the higher risk for cancer in people who survived the bombings is related to potential toxic exposures, such as; dioxins, contaminations, toxic smoke, chemical exposures, hazardous substances from combustion, etc.
Michael Palmer writes:
“…it is not biologically plausible that napalm burns should increase the cancer risk of interior organs. In contrast, an elevated general risk of cancer would be expected after exposure to genotoxic agents such as sulfur mustard. Thus, the cancer risk associated with burns strengthens our previous conclusion that a substantial fraction of the reported burns were indeed chemical burns due to mustard gas.”
[…]
“Importantly, mustard gas also mimics the typical manifestations of radiation sickness such as bone marrow suppression and epilation, and it can persist in the environment for weeks or even months. Thus, mustard gas accounts for ‘radiation sickness’ not only in those who were in the city at the time of the bombing, but also in those who entered it in the aftermath.”
The following information can be found in a study entitled Long-term health effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs not as dire as perceived:
“…public perception of the rates of cancer and birth defects among survivors and their children is in fact greatly exaggerated when compared to the reality revealed by comprehensive follow-up studies.”
[…]
“ ‘Most people, including many scientists, are under the impression that the survivors faced debilitating health effects and very high rates of cancer, and that their children had high rates of genetic disease,’ says Bertrand Jordan, an author and a molecular biologist at Aix-Marseille Université, in France. ‘There’s an enormous gap between that belief and what has actually been found by researchers’. ”
[…]
“The studies have clearly demonstrated that radiation exposure increases cancer risk, but also show that the average lifespan of survivors was reduced by only a few months compared to those not exposed to radiation.”
The Hiroshima/Nagasaki Survivor Studies: Discrepancies Between Results and General Perception:
“The picture obtained from these extensive and careful studies is very different from the impressions that prevail in the general public and even among many scientists. The general perception is that survivors from these cities were heavily affected by various types of cancer, and suffered much shorter lives as a result.”
“…most of the survivors did not develop cancer and their average life span was reduced by months, at most 1 year. Likewise, it is generally thought that abnormal births, malformations, and extensive mutations are common among the children of irradiated survivors, when in fact the follow-up of 77,000 such children (excluding children irradiated in utero) fails so far to show evidence of deleterious effects.”
A study entitled Hiroshima Study Finds No Genetic Damage was featured in the New York Times, year 1990:
“A 40-year study of thousands of Japanese who survived the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows radiation exposure did not cause genetic damage that could lead to human mutations, a researcher said today.”
“The researcher, John Boice of the National Cancer Institute said, ‘Ionizing radiation is known to cause heritable mutations in many species of plants and animals, but intense study of 70,000 offspring of atomic bomb survivors has failed to identify an increase in congenital abnormalities, cancer, chromosome aberrations or mutational blood protein changes‘. ”
“Mr. Boice’s comments were published in the current issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, which carried several studies on the 45th anniversary of the bombings. Since 1950, 100,000 survivors of the two blasts have been studied.”
A study entitled Cancer incidence in children and young adults did not increase relative to parental exposure to atomic bombs made the following conclusions:
“Our results suggest that cancer incidence in children and young adults did not increase relative to parental exposure to atomic bombs.”
[…]
”Cancer incidence was no higher for subjects with exposed parents than for the reference subjects, nor did the incidence rates increase with increasing dose.”
What about nuclear bomb tests?
A lot of footage has been released and shows obvious fakery. If they faked any of it, one may rightfully assume they faked all of it. It is possible that high volume dynamite was used during military observations and certain tests.
