Author Topic: Interesting points - are Nukes real? (Read 101893 times)

Matthew · « **on:** September 01, 2025, 09:18:46 PM »

Personally I'd like to look into (and disprove) each of his points. Because on the surface, taking his words at face value, he makes a lot of good points.

Seraphina · « **Reply #1 on:** September 01, 2025, 09:38:26 PM »

Interesting, but nonsense. Call it what you want, but my father witnessed several while in the Navy and had all the strange cancerous skin growths to prove it. He was stationed in the Pacific.
My uncle was in the Army, one of the soldiers in the trenches in Nevada. They’d all be wearing protective goggles, facing backwards in the trench, and after the gale force wind passed over, they’d climb out and run to ground zero with Geiger counters. He was second to last of his unit to die of cancer, mainly leukemia, at age 70. Another man outlived him by a few months, also dead of leukemia. Men started dying in their late 30’s, most in their 40’s and 50’s.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 01, 2025, 09:59:53 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on September 01, 2025, 09:18:46 PM

Personally I'd like to look into (and disprove) each of his points. Because on the surface, taking his words at face value, he makes a lot of good points.

The "no nukes" nonsense has been addressed here previously. I am certainly wasting any more of my life discussing the stupidity.

Twice dyed · « **Reply #3 on:** September 02, 2025, 06:09:08 PM »

Quote from: Mark 79 on September 01, 2025, 09:59:53 PM

The "no nukes" nonsense has been addressed here previously. I am certainly wasting any more of my life discussing the stupidity.

Thanks for your instructions. ..My grandfather was up quite early on the morning on July 16, 1945, and he saw like the sun rising...but it was from the SouthWest.!!? He was puzzled. Then later he found out they had tested a Nuke bomb. .."Trinity site", New Mexico.
The real terrifying thing I heard about the at0mic weapon, it was suspected that if it ever started a chainreaction in water, in contact with water, it would destroy ALL the water on earth!...Is that why they tested in a dry location? There are extremely evil characters out there.
And Our Lady is more powerful than any b0mb...look at Japan , some priests never got harmed..."In this house we pray the ROSARY". Amazing.!

AMDG forever · « **Reply #4 on:** September 03, 2025, 04:51:04 AM »

Quote from: Mark 79 on September 01, 2025, 09:59:53 PM

The "no nukes" nonsense has been addressed here previously. I am certainly wasting any more of my life discussing the stupidity.

They’re the same wackos that don’t believe that viruses exist and that Paul VI had a double…….

Everlast22 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 03, 2025, 07:42:56 AM »

To me, whether nukes exist or not, is a... 60/40 (60 being there are no "nukes" the way we know them)

I know for sure the Hiroshima atomic bomb drop was fake. They were fire bombed.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 03, 2025, 09:26:00 AM »

https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/would-god-allow-nuclear-war/msg940854/#msg940854

https://www.cathinfo.com/world-war-iii-chapter-2/fatima-wwiii/msg941171/#msg941171

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on June 27, 2024, 03:29:42 AM

Quote

Long-term effects of the supposed nuclear bombs are examined here: https://mpalmer.heresy.is/webnotes/HR/Long-term.html
However, the chapter builds upon things established in previous chapters and being of a deeply scientific nature will be too involved for the casual reader.…

I went to the link… and there is considerable verbiage… about teratogenic effects of alkylating agents.

So what?

It is well recognized that ionizing radiation is not the only cause of mutations. This is at the basis of some of the most fundamental principles of obstetrics: Avoid drugs during pregnancy. …and oncology: Many chemotherapy drugs are mutagens. There is even evidence accuмulating that non-ionizing radiation may be mutagenic.

Where is the evidence for widespread alkylating agent dispersal in two cities about 400km apart? In the article there is no section adducing such evidence.

The authors also offered this:

"Cancer incidence is significantly increased even in those survivors with very low estimated radiation exposure, and also in those who entered the inner city of Hiroshima shortly after the bombing."

So what?

See my posts above. Sequestration of even LOW amounts of persistent radionuclides, especially "bone seekers" like Cesium-137 readily burst Grant et al.'s claim. Even LOW amounts of Iodine-131, a non-persistent radionuclide, will be sequestered by the thyroid with a spectrum of both early and late cancers.

I am not alone. I just did a gloss of the article and found more holes in it than I have time to waste. Others have done a more through job of debunking Grant et al. For a more thorough debunking than I intend to offer here, See:
Miyao M, Watanabe T, Honda R, Yamada Y. Answer to the comments by Eric J. Grant et al. in "Radiation unlikely to be responsible for high cancer rates among distal Hiroshima A-bomb survivors". Environ Health Prev Med. 2009 Jul;14(4):250-3. doi: 10.1007/s12199-009-0088-7. Epub 2009 May 2. PMID: 19568833; PMCID: PMC2711885.

If this is the quality of the evidence, I am not wasting any more time on this. You can believe whatever you want.

I am well aware of—and I reject—the legions of other frauds perpetrated upon us. After my own significant study on this topic, I am convinced that nuclear weapons are real. You don't need to be convinced. I have no compulsion to convince you. As I said, you can believe whatever you want.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 03, 2025, 09:27:43 AM »

https://www.cathinfo.com/world-war-iii-chapter-2/fatima-wwiii/msg941070/#msg941070

Quote

…It's 100% certain that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not nuked but firebombed.…

How then does one explain the observed and thoroughly docuмented spike in birth defects, still births, and cancers?

While one may casually speculate that inhaled/ingested toxins from conventional explosives might cause the birth defects and still births, one is hard-pressed to explain, for example the special signature spike in thyroid cancers following "TNT explosions." The thyroid gland has a special affinity to sequester certain radionuclides, but there is no evidence of any such signature response to conventional explosives or their degradation products.

If one wants to blame the thyroid cancer spikes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki on "TNT," how does one blame "TNT" for the spike following the Chernobyl reactor disaster? Did Chernobyl release a deadly cloud of TNT with persistent effects on all life below?

Consider: Iodine-131 has a short half-life* (7.9 days) so decays relatively quickly, accounting for the very early spikes in thyroid cancers after nuclear events. Iodine-129 has a half-life of 15,700,000 years. The 36 known radioisotopes of iodine all have varying half-lives, so exert their rad-bio effects with matching time frames. In aggregate these persistent Iodine radionuclides account for the observed sustained increase in thyroid cancers over pre-exposure baseline that follows the initial Iodine-131-induced spike.

Iodine-127 is the only non-radioactive Iodine isotope.… and that is why SSKI-127 (Super Saturated Potassium Iodine-127) is used as a thyroid blocker. If taken early enough (even pre-exposure), very high doses of SSKI saturate the thyroid's iodine-uptake apparatus, so that when the radionuclides arrive and are inhaled/ingested, the thyroid is unable to sequester any more. This blocks the thyroid cancer increases that are otherwise observed.

TNT (2,4,6-trinitrotoluene) is composed only of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen—no iodine or other elements. No thyroid-specific toxicities are observed with TNT and no thyroid-specific cancer spike or sustained incidence can be observed.

It takes multiple lifetime careers to do such analysis—which is exactly what the ABCC did!

So…

However many fraudulent events have been perpetrated, it behooves us to not be dismissive of nuclear weapons and their rad-bio effects. Please do not wed yourself to this—dare I say it?—crackpot "no nukes" theory.

Just as hysteria is to be condemned, so too absolute denialism must be condemned.

*Recall that a "half-life" is the time for the amount of radiation to decrease by half. After one half-life the radiation level is not zero, but only half!

Mark 79 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 03, 2025, 09:36:56 AM »

https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/theory-nukes-aren't-real/msg948407/#msg948407

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 14, 2024, 10:25:25 AM

Quote

I wasn't saying there were 2 different weapons/bombs used at Hiroshima. I was saying that just because radiation was present, doesn't mean that a nuke was used. We all assume that large amounts of radiation can only come from nukes. And this is based off what? Info from the govt, hollywood and media.

Well then… please put your evidence on the table. Please edify us exactly the alternative sources of "large amounts of radiation."

Look, the ONLY footage we have of a nuke bomb is the famous "mushroom cloud" video of *some bomb* going off in the US desert. That's the only evidence we have of what it looks like.

Really? We "only" have "footage"? No people dead or crippled from radiation?

Hiroshima's bomb was horrible, but we can't assume it was a nuke just based on the govt's word.

Who has "assumed" anything but the "no nukes" folks? We have decades of information amassed about the unique chronology, location, and character of cataracts, corneal scarring, retinal burns, throid cancer and bone cancer.

I think it is fair to say that it is the "no nukes" faction that is doing the assuming.

People associate nukes with the mushroom cloud/massive destruction. But nukes have only been used 1 time in history (allegedly). That's not much hard evidence at all.

So was Hiroshima the "only one"? Or was Nagasaki the "only one"?

Plenty of other bombs can cause radiation, i'm sure.

Well then… what "other bombs" cause radiation? Specifically what "other bombs" cause ionizing radiation? Plenty of bombs create light (light is a type of radiation), but what "other bombs" cause ionizing radiation?

And please do me a favor. Don't offer your dirty bomb fantasy again. I already debunked that earlier in this thread. The unique timing and distance distribution of post-bomb effects cannot be explained by a "dirty bomb" at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. If you forgot the debunking, please re-read my response in this thread.

But which can't cause the mushroom cloud/massive destruction of the "hollywood nuke". The "massive destruction" is a fairytale, in my opinion.

Without explaining the problems with your "no nukes" and "dirty bomb" theories, it is you (plural) who offer fairytales.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #9 on:** September 03, 2025, 09:42:09 AM »

https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/theory-nukes-aren't-real/msg948291/#msg948291

Quote

…When I say "Nukes aren't real", it's a shorthand for "the complete story and mythos of nuclear bombs and nuclear deterrent is mostly false". That doesn't mean they didn't create a couple large bombs for Nagasaki and Hiroshima -- maybe they packed them with spent fuel rods, uranium and basically made a "dirty bomb". There's your explanation for the Hiroshima/Nagasaki after effects you studied at University, Mark79. Completely possible.…

No! Not "completely possible." Arguably plausible at first blush, but careful analysis reveals the flaws, not possible.

And here I am posting again…#$%^&… This is so crackpot that I am angry at myself for responding, so I will truncate this. For the better part of a century people have been throwing shit at the "no nukes" wall and none of it sticks.

The best line of arguments against your "dirty bomb" theory are the post-incident eye problems.

As I already said in the threads I linked… Ahem!… the lens of the eye is extremely sensitive to ionizing radiation, so sensitive that over a lifetime even the UV in sunlight causes cataracts. To develop cataracts in people who were not even looking at the Ground Zero flash within days —as observed in Hiroshima/Nagasaki— requires high energy gamma or x-ray radiation.

Dispersed radionuclides (and Dresden firestorms), though horrific, cannot mimic the effects of a single high-energy gamma from nukes. So, not "completely possible."

Moving to a different eye problem, flash blindness. One can certainly get corneal scarring, cataracts, and retinal burns from close proximity exposure to intense heat, but one cannot get corneal scarring, retinal burns, and cataracts —as observed in Hiroshima/Nagasaki—from distant intense heat. Only an intense radiation burst or prolonged low-level exposure to radiation can cause corneal scarring, cataracts, and retinal burns—as observed in Hiroshima/Nagasaki! Neither dirty bombs nor intense distant heat nor alkylating agents can produce the eye problems—as observed in Hiroshima/Nagasaki. So again, not "completely possible."

One can apply parallel analysis to the other observed sequellae of Hiroshima/Nagasaki with similar logical conclusion. Many have proffered alternative explanations to nukes and they have failed. The alternatives offered here on CathInfo as offered elsewhere by others cannot explain the observed sequellae. In the threads mentioned, I linked to a particularly careful debunking of one alternative explanation. So again, not "completely possible."

As the saying goes, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

You have not and cannot explain the observed and incontestable facts with alternative explanations. If an alternative explanation eventually explains the observed facts, I will happily embrace it. I do not embrace repetitive magical thinking, illogic, tendentious ignorance, or speculations that are adverse to the observed facts. Why ignore the explanations and links that I and others have previously provided?

So… No! Not "completely possible." Q.E.D.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 03, 2025, 09:49:48 AM »

https://www.cathinfo.com/world-war-iii-chapter-2/fatima-wwiii/msg941171/#msg941171

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on June 27, 2024, 03:29:42 AM

Quote

Long-term effects of the supposed nuclear bombs are examined here: https://mpalmer.heresy.is/webnotes/HR/Long-term.html
However, the chapter builds upon things established in previous chapters and being of a deeply scientific nature will be too involved for the casual reader.…

I went to the link… and there is considerable verbiage… about teratogenic effects of alkylating agents.

So what?

It is well recognized that ionizing radiation is not the only cause of mutations. This is at the basis of some of the most fundamental principles of obstetrics: Avoid drugs during pregnancy. …and oncology: Many chemotherapy drugs are mutagens. There is even evidence accuмulating that non-ionizing radiation may be mutagenic.

Where is the evidence for widespread alkylating agent dispersal in two cities about 400km apart? In the article there is no section adducing such evidence.

The authors also offered this:

"Cancer incidence is significantly increased even in those survivors with very low estimated radiation exposure, and also in those who entered the inner city of Hiroshima shortly after the bombing."

So what?

See my posts above. Sequestration of even LOW amounts of persistent radionuclides, especially "bone seekers" like Cesium-137 readily burst Grant et al.'s claim. Even LOW amounts of Iodine-131, a non-persistent radionuclide, will be sequestered by the thyroid with a spectrum of both early and late cancers.

I am not alone. I just did a gloss of the article and found more holes in it than I have time to waste. Others have done a more through job of debunking Grant et al. For a more thorough debunking than I intend to offer here, See:
Miyao M, Watanabe T, Honda R, Yamada Y. Answer to the comments by Eric J. Grant et al. in "Radiation unlikely to be responsible for high cancer rates among distal Hiroshima A-bomb survivors". Environ Health Prev Med. 2009 Jul;14(4):250-3. doi: 10.1007/s12199-009-0088-7. Epub 2009 May 2. PMID: 19568833; PMCID: PMC2711885.

If this is the quality of the evidence, I am not wasting any more time on this. You can believe whatever you want.

I am well aware of—and I reject—the legions of other frauds perpetrated upon us. After my own significant study on this topic, I am convinced that nuclear weapons are real. You don't need to be convinced. I have no compulsion to convince you. As I said, you can believe whatever you want.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 03, 2025, 10:08:14 AM »

See my linked posts above for prior discussions about "no nukes."

Having addressed the "no nukes" theory in considerable detail, no reader here should find anything "interesting" about "no nukes." "No nukes" cannot withstand several lines of irrefutable counter-evidence. For "no nukes" to be plausible, ALL the counter-evidence must be explained away. In 80 years NOBODY has done that.

Mat183 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 03, 2025, 10:28:56 AM »

The "no nukes' nonsense is on par with the ridiculous no planes hit the towers hoax.

Everlast22 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 03, 2025, 10:39:20 AM »

Quote from: Mat183 on September 03, 2025, 10:28:56 AM

The "no nukes' nonsense is on par with the ridiculous no planes hit the towers hoax.

Something hit one, initially. It was not an airplane. Then they were controlled demoed.

Mat183 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 03, 2025, 10:48:16 AM »

Quote from: Everlast22 on September 03, 2025, 10:39:20 AM

Something hit one, initially. It was not an airplane. Then they were controlled demoed.

Did 2 separate planes hit the towers? Yes or no? If no please provide your best authenticated evidence to prove your case.

Author Topic: Interesting points - are Nukes real? (Read 101893 times)

Matthew

Interesting points - are Nukes real?

Seraphina

Re: Interesting points - are Nukes real?

Mark 79

Re: Interesting points - are Nukes real?

Twice dyed

Re: Interesting points - are Nukes real?

AMDG forever

Re: Interesting points - are Nukes real?

Everlast22

Re: Interesting points - are Nukes real?

Mark 79

Re: Interesting points - are Nukes real?

Mark 79

Re: Interesting points - are Nukes real?

Mark 79

Re: Interesting points - are Nukes real?

Mark 79

Re: Interesting points - are Nukes real?

Mark 79

Re: Interesting points - are Nukes real?

Mark 79

not "interesting," but DEBUNKED

Mat183

Re: Interesting points - are Nukes real?

Everlast22

Re: Interesting points - are Nukes real?

Mat183

Re: Interesting points - are Nukes real?