Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Fatima WWIII  (Read 9983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Miseremini

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4605
  • Reputation: +3669/-317
  • Gender: Female
Re: Fatima WWIII
« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2024, 11:06:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Yeti on June 25, 2024, 03:58:54 PM
    .

    In the fifties, people could watch nuclear bombs being detonated in Nevada from grandstands in Las Vegas.
    And then there was the fallout of cancers and leukemia.

    The movie The Conqueror starring John Wayne was shot where 11 bombs were detonated in 1953
    Of the 220 cast and crew of the movie, 91 had contracted cancer.  The Mormon comunity who lived in the area had levels of leukemia five times higher than other Mormons.
     
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/06/downwinders-nuclear-fallout-hollywood-john-wayne
     

    Logged
    "Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered: and them that hate Him flee from before His Holy Face"  Psalm 67:2[/b]

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12787
    • Reputation: +8458/-1600
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fatima WWIII
    « Reply #16 on: June 26, 2024, 11:11:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Martius on June 26, 2024, 08:26:33 PM
    Hiroshima Revisited by Michael Palmer was an interesting read, he goes into all the details. 
    Chalk up "nukes" to more of the the fake, the gαy and Jєωιѕн 20th century lies.

    Yes. Lots of fiction is interesting.

    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12787
    • Reputation: +8458/-1600
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fatima WWIII
    « Reply #17 on: June 26, 2024, 11:14:53 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on June 26, 2024, 09:00:08 PM
    None of that happened near Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... the two places they were allegedly used on people.  Greatest incident in this regard was Chernobyl, but that was obviously not a nuclear bomb.
    As I said, I was there at the ABCC, though decades after the nukes. I saw the evidence that with the wave of your hand ("None of that happened") you deny.

    If for a moment we accept your "no nukes" premise and await how you rebut the decades of ABCC/RERC data, how then do you respond to all I presented here?

    Quote from: Mark 79 on June 26, 2024, 11:20:07 AM


    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!

    Logged

    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +403/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fatima WWIII
    « Reply #18 on: June 27, 2024, 03:29:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on June 26, 2024, 11:14:53 PM
    As I said, I was there at the ABCC, though decades after the nukes. I saw the evidence that with the wave of your hand ("None of that happened") you deny.

    If for a moment we accept your "no nukes" premise and await how you rebut the decades of ABCC/RERC data, how then do you respond to all I presented here?
    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 recommend first getting an overview of the best arguments and not starting with just one random aspect of the issue.

    A more general and interesting overview can be found here: https://archive.org/details/no-nukes-but-mustard-gas <- START HERE

    A historical analysis examining how the bombings were actually carried out was posted on another thread, here's the link: https://fakeotube.com/video/6009/the-nuclear-hoax-what-really-happened-to-hiroshima-and-nagasaki

    Maybe supporters of the nuclear hoax can explain how the supposed nuclear bomb didn't destroy buildings at the hypocenter, nor kill all people close to it, and I'd also like to hear how believers in nuclear respond to the various testimonies of professionals at the scene who express their surprise at everything looking just the same as any other place that was firebombed.

    Will we see such explanations? Will the pro-nuclear crowd even look at the evidence?





    This doctor died the same year he wrote this in a plane crash.




    Careful researchers will notice that all this only refutes that nuclear bombs were used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but does not refute the existence of the bombs per se which is a separate issue.

    Anyway, watch the videos if you want the truth.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46919
    • Reputation: +27793/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fatima WWIII
    « Reply #19 on: June 27, 2024, 07:13:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on June 27, 2024, 03:29:42 AM
    Careful researchers will notice that all this only refutes that nuclear bombs were used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but does not refute the existence of the bombs per se which is a separate issue.

    Right.  I made this distinction early on in my posts.  While it's possible these were developed by the mid-1950s or so, there's no evidence they were used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  In fact, the evidence points to the contrary.  I don't think they had the technology working at least yet, but they wanted the world (and the Soviet Union) to THINK that they had it, to use as a deterrent against 1) various enemies and 2) the Soviets in particular, just in case the Soviets beat them to developing the first nukes.

    But evidently some people struggle with reading English when both of us said that we're not sure about the 1950s.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46919
    • Reputation: +27793/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fatima WWIII
    « Reply #20 on: June 27, 2024, 07:16:16 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on June 26, 2024, 11:14:53 PM
    As I said, I was there at the ABCC, though decades after the nukes. I saw the evidence that with the wave of your hand ("None of that happened") you deny.

    Ironically it is YOU who are dismissing everything with "the wave of your hand" while falsely attributing that to those who disagree with you.  "I saw the evidence ...".  When, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  You were there?  You might take note of the fact that some of us are undecided at this time about whether nukes exists at all, but are just saying the early nuke events were faked.  You saw evidence first hand to contradict this assertion?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46919
    • Reputation: +27793/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fatima WWIII
    « Reply #21 on: June 27, 2024, 07:17:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Miseremini on June 26, 2024, 11:06:08 PM
    And then there was the fallout of cancers and leukemia.

    The movie The Conqueror starring John Wayne was shot where 11 bombs were detonated in 1953
    Of the 220 cast and crew of the movie, 91 had contracted cancer.  The Mormon comunity who lived in the area had levels of leukemia five times higher than other Mormons.

    This does not mean that there were nuclear explosions, just that there was radioactive material IN them.  Cf. dirty bombs.  Were nuclear bombs detonated at Chernobyl also ... following which the cancer rates were off the charts?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46919
    • Reputation: +27793/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fatima WWIII
    « Reply #22 on: June 27, 2024, 07:20:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on June 25, 2024, 12:17:49 PM
    I'm not even sure, personally, whether nuclear bombs exist.  They were not used at Hiroshima/Nagasaki (those were both frauds, massive firebombing using conventional weapons where the US pretended it had used nukes), and there's much obviously-fake footage of nuclear tests.  They may have eventually gotten them "working" but they were not working as early as they had claimed.

    For reference, since evidently some posters here missed this.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46919
    • Reputation: +27793/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fatima WWIII
    « Reply #23 on: June 27, 2024, 07:22:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Similar to what happened with the fake moon landings, the US was worried that the Soviets might develop nukes first, and so they had to fake at least the first few.
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12787
    • Reputation: +8458/-1600
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fatima WWIII
    « Reply #24 on: June 27, 2024, 11:09:08 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on June 27, 2024, 03:29:42 AM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12787
    • Reputation: +8458/-1600
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fatima WWIII
    « Reply #25 on: June 27, 2024, 11:23:35 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on June 26, 2024, 11:14:53 PM
    As I said, I was there at the ABCC, though decades after the nukes. [Emphasis added]
    Lad, what part of "after" didn't you understand?  I did indeed see the evidence of radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of many examples, the incidence of cataracts in survivors distant from the blast. the lens of the eye is VERY radiation sensitive. Consider that UV light in Arizona means we have higher incidence of cataracts than in areas with less intense UV exposure.  Burns (as in your putative 'firebombing' scenario) can indeed cause cataracts, but not at the distances observed in the nuked cities.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46919
    • Reputation: +27793/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fatima WWIII
    « Reply #26 on: June 27, 2024, 12:01:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on June 27, 2024, 11:23:35 AM
    Lad, what part of "after" didn't you understand?  I did indeed see the evidence of radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of many examples, the incidence of cataracts in survivors distant from the blast. the lens of the eye is VERY radiation sensitive. Consider that UV light in Arizona means we have higher incidence of cataracts than in areas with less intense UV exposure.  Burns (as in your putative 'firebombing' scenario) can indeed cause cataracts, but not at the distances observed in the nuked cities.

    100% nonsense.
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12787
    • Reputation: +8458/-1600
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fatima WWIII
    « Reply #27 on: June 27, 2024, 12:38:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • I see your evidence-free denial as the hand-waving it is.

    While I would not pretend that "politics" is evidence, I do find it interesting that the Japanese military and diplomats first offered to surrender in November 1944 before their fourth surrender offer was accepted in August 1945. The final surrender was accepted on exactly the same terms (allowing  the Emperor to remain titular head of Japan), so roughly ¼ million people were unnecessarily killed in the Pacific Theater between Nov '44 and Aug '45.

    Why? What was gained by .zog/.gov at the cost of ¼ million lives?

    In Nov '44 the (((Manhattan Project))) was not yet complete. .zog/.gov had firebombing technology since WW 1, but not nukes.

    .zog/.gov engaged in firebombing for virtually the entire war in both Europe and the Pacific. Having already had the technology to firebomb at will, why would .zog/.gov not accept Japan's Nov '44 offer of surrender? I can only speculate. I think .zog/.gov wanted desperately to show their big balls nuclear weapons to the world, so, in this instance and in their typically satanic murderous way, (((they))) killed ¼ million people. — Of course that is only 0.1% of those killed directly and indirectly by Jews in the 20th century.

    Again, I do not pretend that this is dispositive evidence, but only an interesting (to me) area of speculation. What the Jєω does Every,Single.Time.


    Logged
    Pages: 1 [2]
    « previous next »