if you had a forest that looked like a forest fire, or a conventional bombing, with no area more damaged than another, could it be possible that a low-yield airburst nuke caused it?

ChatGPT said:
I see what you’re asking — whether you could look at the pattern of destruction in a forest and tell if it came from a nuke versus fire/bombs. Here’s the breakdown:

---

1. Damage patterns

• Conventional bombing: Usually creates localized craters and patchy zones of destruction, not uniform. You see blast radii overlapping but rarely an even “carpet.”
• Forest fire: Creates a uniform burn pattern depending on wind and fuel. Trees are scorched but not blown over in a radial pattern.
• Nuclear airburst:
  
  • A low-yield airburst (say, sub-kiloton to a few kilotons) won’t leave a crater.
  • The damage tends to be radial, with trees leaning or blown down in a pattern pointing away from ground zero.
  • There’s also severe thermal damage — trees scorched on the side facing the burst, sometimes igniting fires.
  • Instead of an even burn, you’d see a mix of blasted + burned trees, often more intense in a broad ring rather than uniform across the forest.

---

2. Uniform-looking destruction
If the destruction looks like a forest fire or conventional saturation bombing, with no area worse than another, that doesn’t match a nuke airburst well. Nuclear blast damage is rarely uniform — it’s strongly distance-dependent:

• Very close → trees flattened, trunks snapped.
• Mid-range → trees blown sideways, mixed burning.
• Farther → mostly singed leaves/branches.

That creates gradients of destruction, not evenness.

---

3. Other giveaways of a nuke
Even with a low-yield airburst, you’d expect:

• Thermal shadows (objects shielding trees/buildings from the flash).
• Radial blowdown pattern in vegetation.
• Secondary fires starting irregularly, not a smooth “burn carpet.”

---

✅ So the short answer:
If the forest looks uniformly burned or evenly bombed, that pattern would be much more consistent with a conventional fire or bombing than with a nuclear airburst, even a small one. A nuke usually leaves a distinct radial blast + burn signature, not a flat, even level of damage.

---

Would you like me to sketch how the damage zones from a low-yield airburst would look compared to a fire and a conventional bombing run? That might make the differences clearer.

if you had a forest that looked like a forest fire…

Why ask hypotheticals?  Why evade the actual observations?

Is the pattern of observed epicenter and hypocenter damage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki consistent with any known cause other than nuclear weapons?

The observed damage patterns in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not consistent with any known cause other than nuclear weapons. The combination of extreme blast effects, a widespread incendiary thermal pulse, and initial and residual radiation exposure is unique to nuclear detonations. …
https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+the+pattern+of+observed+epicenter+and+hypocenter+damage+at+Hiroshima+and+Nagasaki+consistent+with+any+known+cause+other+than+nuclear+weapons%3F&aep=22&udm=50&mstk=AUtExfDCCCOHdHvjPSF2b9ZjxrYNsqq2iY5KlKDonnUr83hGQJ4qaE_fr4hug-mFG3gj_yIDZj1hQ3iiPp65SYW3kqNnd4XKvu_9jOJ5CWp2qDEHzeNZ433gQS0qmd18eW3g8l1XGSo0GGTxDIDNIOQRvADCYTiZLTJnCWo&csuir=1

Is the pattern of observed medical sequellae at Hiroshima and Nagasaki consistent with any known cause other than nuclear weapons?

Based on extensive long-term research, including the Life Span Study conducted by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), the specific pattern of medical sequelae observed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not consistent with any known cause other than nuclear weapons. The unique combination of immediate and delayed health effects, and the dose-dependent nature of radiation sickness and cancer, distinctly sets these outcomes apart from other types of large-scale disaster.

The medical consequences of the atomic bombings fall into three distinct, yet interconnected, categories: acute, late-onset, and in-utero effects. While some of these effects can occur individually from other causes, their specific combination and temporal pattern are characteristic of high-dose, whole-body radiation exposure from a nuclear blast. …
https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+the+pattern+of+observed+medical+sequellae+at+Hiroshima+and+Nagasaki+consistent+with+any+known+cause+other+than+nuclear+weapons%3F&hl=en&aep=22&udm=50&mtid=FPG6aN3QBbXfkPIP3c2C-Ac&mstk=AUtExfARqB5Orp5RsU2i8sUlre-23Qq1keO4pXLfZ6Cly6sVQTGtNKvrhN3NcPEuY9j0y1t_k7Esb1XW7jDPCwEH-Y10mrZJLTXv28DmDZT334-S7U8np6bnJoXmFqLbNZHsrldCGN-EoIQ4XG4pGvMqTlnXyxJ3bS4kURI&csuir=1

By the way, if what you say is nukes is true, then we shouldn't be worrying about nuclear war so much. Sure, you might have a few cases of cancer, etc. and in a few years, you rebuild the city no problem. So much for apocalyptic, earth-ending cataclysm!

So perhaps like with Covid, there is a kernel of truth to nuclear weapons, but they are blown out of proportion (pardon the pun) with 90% inflated fear porn attached, and an agenda of control layered over it, which is very much NOT necessary or called-for.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki look just fine to me -- we shouldn't be so paranoid about nuclear war. No more so than regular bombings. Sure, the cities got destroyed and that isn't good, but cities get destroyed by conventional war all the time, and people don't change their whole lifestyle (or surrender themselves to anything, out of overpowering fear) over that.

Even if I accept everything you said in this thread at face value, the fact still remains that what we are taught about nukes contradicts these facts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We are told that nukes do *much* more permanent damage, the damage should be more absolute (wiping a city off the face of the earth, with no recognizable debris), the environmental damage should persist MUCH longer, and survivors should be more rare.

They tell us they have "much more powerful" nukes today -- sure they do. What proof do we have? They lie about literally everything. The whole thing could be a SCAM, a scheme to control and instill fear in the population. That was the point of the OP video, by the way. And he's absolutely right about that -- regardless of what did or didn't happen in the 2 Japanese cities.

Even if the 2 Japanese cities were nuked, nukes are still 99% a scam. The "larger" ones may not even exist; we have no proof. And it's awful convenient how they use it to create fear to control the population, don't you think? And how many Jews were involved in the Manhattan project?

I don't believe man has the power to destroy the earth, or basically destroy it which would happen in a "nuclear winter". As a Traditional Catholic, I am skeptical of man holding that kind of power. I have theological reasons for my opinion on this matter.

By the way, if what you say is nukes is true, then we shouldn't be worrying about nuclear war so much. Sure, you might have a few cases of cancer, etc. and in a few years, you rebuild the city no problem. So much for apocalyptic, earth-ending cataclysm!

So perhaps like with Covid, there is a kernel of truth to nuclear weapons, but they are blown out of proportion (pardon the pun) with 90% inflated fear porn attached, and an agenda of control layered over it, which is very much NOT necessary or called-for.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki look just fine to me -- we shouldn't be so paranoid about nuclear war. No more so than regular bombings. Sure, the cities got destroyed and that isn't good, but cities get destroyed by conventional war all the time, and people don't change their whole lifestyle (or surrender themselves to anything, out of overpowering fear) over that.

Even if I accept everything you said in this thread at face value, the fact still remains that what we are taught about nukes contradicts these facts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We are told that nukes do *much* more permanent damage, the damage should be more absolute (wiping a city off the face of the earth, with no recognizable debris), the environmental damage should persist MUCH longer, and survivors should be more rare.

They tell us they have "much more powerful" nukes today -- sure they do. What proof do we have? They lie about literally everything. The whole thing could be a SCAM, a scheme to control and instill fear in the population. That was the point of the OP video, by the way. And he's absolutely right about that -- regardless of what did or didn't happen in the 2 Japanese cities.

Even if the 2 Japanese cities were nuked, nukes are still 99% a scam. The "larger" ones may not even exist; we have no proof. And it's awful convenient how they use it to create fear to control the population, don't you think? And how many Jews were involved in the Manhattan project?

I don't believe man has the power to destroy the earth, or basically destroy it which would happen in a "nuclear winter". As a Traditional Catholic, I am skeptical of man holding that kind of power. I have theological reasons for my opinion on this matter.

Yes.  There’s always truth to stories.  But this one is overblown, fear-mongering, meant to control the population.  I think there was some UN docuмent in the 80s which said they could use “nuclear disarmament” as a way to start the idea of “global treaties” and “UN laws”.  It was a way to psychologically pave the way for “all counties to come together” and agree on something big.  

It worked great.  Now there’s UN treaties on everything, from fishing limits to health/WHO, to trade rules. 

Yes.  There’s always truth to stories.  But this one is overblown, fear-mongering, meant to control the population.  I think there was some UN docuмent in the 80s which said they could use “nuclear disarmament” as a way to start the idea of “global treaties” and “UN laws”.  It was a way to psychologically pave the way for “all counties to come together” and agree on something big. 

It worked great.  Now there’s UN treaties on everything, from fishing limits to health/WHO, to trade rules.

The thread resurrected consideration of "no nukes."

If you want to opine about the downstream political and personal implications, use, and misuse of nukes have at it.

Bottom line: Best evidence supports the existence of nuclear weapons… period.  "No nukes" is a batshit crazy claim.

Speculate all you want, you are welcome to your own opinions. Nobody is welcome to their own "facts."

Yes, but what the "facts" are is up for debate. Who do you choose to trust? The government? NASA? Some have no faith in these organizations, and consequently are not willing to take their word for anything. Myself included.

It's not like I'm rejecting something that is common sense, or within the testable reach of the average person. It's all decades-old videos (faked?) and the testimony -- the word -- of lying Government agencies. See the problem?

In fact, I'm not "rejecting" anything. I merely committed the sin of heresy, of questioning the common narrative. So burn me at the stake already!

Contrast this with "gender" issues. Anyone with common sense, anyone who has pets or farm animals, knows that males and females are different, and that only females can give birth, etc. Some choose to live in an alternate reality, a delusion, where "men" can have periods, etc. Or even that a man can become a woman (or vice-versa). THAT is against the facts, that is against common experience, observable reality, and common sense.

I have never seen a nuke, or even a recent video of one that could be verified. No country has used one in 80 years. You gotta admit, it's highly sketchy. Even if nukes turn out to be true, it's still HIGHLY sketchy.

I'm sorry, but the "facts" about nukes are hardly that self-evident or testable by the average layman. Unless you want to drive yourself insane from frustration, you're going to have to realize this, and therefore develop SOME level of patience with the skepticism shown in this thread.

In view of the Bikini Atoll and Nevada desert videos and rad data, "best evidence" is consistent with contemporary levels of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons capable of making humanity extinct.

So are you saying "God better watch out?". If one of a handful of leaders just decides to, he could end the world. They could totally override God's plan and providence for the world?

If what you say is true, God should have come down and REMOVED those things from our arsenals long ago. Or else Judgment Day is liable to come early!
Or are you suggesting God is working miracles on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis to prevent various individuals from using these earth-destroying weapons?

Are you saying it's not the CIA assassinating various people with "heart attack guns" and such, but it's actually God striking people dead before they can act?

Because never before 1950 has mankind had Judgment Day in his back pocket. I guess man is equal to God now?

See, in my opinion as a Traditional Catholic, THAT is batshit crazy. And I'm just as welcome to my opinion, as you are welcome to yours.

Yes, but what the "facts" are is up for debate. Who do you choose to trust? The government? NASA? Some have no faith in these organizations, and consequently are not willing to take their word for anything. Myself included.

It's not like I'm rejecting something that is common sense, or within the testable reach of the average person. It's all decades-old videos (faked?) and the testimony -- the word -- of lying Government agencies. See the problem?

In fact, I'm not "rejecting" anything. I merely committed the sin of heresy, of questioning the common narrative. So burn me at the stake already!

Contrast this with "gender" issues. Anyone with common sense, anyone who has pets or farm animals, knows that males and females are different, and that only females can give birth, etc. Some choose to live in an alternate reality, a delusion, where "men" can have periods, etc. Or even that a man can become a woman (or vice-versa). THAT is against the facts, that is against common experience, observable reality, and common sense.

I have never seen a nuke, or even a recent video of one that could be verified. No country has used one in 80 years. You gotta admit, it's highly sketchy. Even if nukes turn out to be true, it's still HIGHLY sketchy.

I'm sorry, but the "facts" about nukes are hardly that self-evident or testable by the average layman. Unless you want to drive yourself insane from frustration, you're going to have to realize this, and therefore develop SOME level of patience with the skepticism shown in this thread.

No. Every "question" you have raised in this thread has been answered and rebutted repeatedly.

At this point the onus is on you to stop asking repetitious "questions" and to provide "answers" (evidence) yourself, not speculation and hypotheticals.

If you can identify defects in anything I have proffered, put your own answers (evidence) on the table.