Over the years I have posted all sorts of content that has freaked out normies and made them get all self righteous and spitty. But nothing seems to wind belivers up quite like exposing the nuclear bomb hoax. Not even the fake moon landing, the 911 inside job or the corona plandemic gets them this fired up. Well there is one thing, but we are not allowed to discuss it on Hive, so to learn about that one you will have to go to Gab.
The Nuclear Bomb Psyop
Image - http://getwallpapers.com/collection/nuclear-bomb-wallpaper
Nuclear bombs are a massive can of worms, but even I can tell that the old video footage is fake, and a quick look around online (not on Google though, because that search engine is less than forthcoming on this subject) rapidly has atom bombs looking as real as moon landings. Holy crap we are a gullible public.
Hiroshima, Japan 1945
Odd how the ruins look very similar to Dresden or Tokyo (see below) which were just obliterated using regular bombs…
Also odd how all the wooden building were destroyed but the sturdy concrete ones were not.
The death tolls from each of these bombings are very unclear, but they were all horrifying, with Dresden possibly the worst. The post war cancer rates however, are more evident. (Also see below)
Dresden Germany
Nagasaki Japan
Hiroshima Japan
Tokyo Japan
Post WW2 cancer rates in Japan are a lot lower than Germany, and far lower than (nuclear free) New Zealand
This is all pretty complex, and cancer rates online are manipulated until the cows come home, but cancer death rates in Nagasaki and Hiroshima do not appear to be any higher than the rest of Japan, (although finding any reliable figures on cancer rates by city in Japan is not easy) and the cancer rates in Japan on a whole, are comparatively low.
The highest cancer rates are Denmark #1 (possible causes include high smoking rates, and reportedly high levels of depression, but there seems to be some other missing factors here), with New Zealand close behind at an appalling #4 (possible causes include water fluoridation, high rates of vaccinations, high use of pesticides, and high rates of obesity), USA (all the NZ factors, in theory at even worse levels, plus additional radiation – how NZ can rate worse than USA is downright suspicious) and meanwhile Japan is one of the lowest in the developed world at #51 (despite in theory having had two major cities destroyed by nuclear bombs). Very odd…
All cancer rates by country – cases - overall/male/female per 100,000 people - (SOURCE: WCRF.ORG)
1 Denmark 326.1 334.7 325.3
2 Ireland 317 355.9 285.1
3 Australia 314.1 360.5 274.4
4 New Zealand 309.2 337.6 287.1
5 Belgium 306.8 351.3 275.7
6 France (metropolitan) 300.4 360.6 254.9
7 USA 300.2 335 274.4
8 Norway 299.1 338.4 270.3
9 Canada 296.6 325.9 275
10 Czech Republic 295 348.8 259.1
11 Israel 288.3 303.7 280.4
12 The Netherlands 286.8 306.3 276.5
13 Luxembourg 284 324 254.4
14 Hungary 282.9 352.3 235.6
15 Iceland 282.2 305.5 265.6
16 Germany 282.1 330.7 245.7
17 Uruguay 280.3 354.4 230.7
18 Italy 274.3 310 251.6
19 French Polynesia 269.6 289.7 256.8
20 Switzerland 269.3 313.2 236
21 Slovenia 267.9 319.6 232.9
22 United Kingdom 266.9 280 260.5
23 Croatia 263.1 315 229.3
24 Republic of Korea 262.4 309.4 234.4
25 Slovakia 260.6 320.2 223.4
26 Sweden 252.1 269.6 241.2
27 Finland 249.8 271.3 239.8
28 Lithuania 244.4 316.5 207.8
29 Chinese Taipei 244.1 282.3 208.5
30 Mongolia 242.2 281.5 210.8
31 Spain 241.4 309.9 187
32 France (Martinique) 234.9 315.4
33 Austria 232.7 275.4 200.6
34 Estonia 230.4 285.7 203.7
35 Latvia 230.4 304 193.4
36 FYR Macedonia 225.1 262.1 196.5
37 Bulgaria 224.7 252.9 206.6
38 Portugal 223.2 266.8 190.8
39 Poland 222.9 280.5 185.5
40 Serbia 218.9 238.5 205.2
41 New Caledonia 218.5 208.4
42 Belarus 213.1 269 186.7
43 Malta 211.4 199.7
44 Barbados 207.9 251.3 189.1
45 Armenia 207.5 260.4
46 Argentina 206.2 193
47 Romania 205.1 240.6
48 Montenegro 204.3 185.2
49 Albania 202.8 196.6
50 South African Republic 202 254.8
51 Japan 247.3
52 Russian Federation 247.1
53 France (Guadeloupe) 245.9
54 France (La Reunion) 252.9
55 Puerto Rico 253.6
56 Honduras 181.6
57 Jamaica 205.1
58 Uganda 186.8
59 Singapore 188.4
Also see this site – it’s beyond ugly from a web design point of view, but has some very interesting content – NUKE LIES - http://www.big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/
There used to be quite a few videos on YouTube about the nuclear bomb con but most of them were either poor quality or really long and boring. All the good ones have been deleted from Youtube for some strange reason...
This post was originally posted on my blog: http://www.frot.co.nz/design/conspiracies/atomic-bombs-are-a-complete-con-job-they-dont-even-exist/
I'm revisiting a few of the old psyops during the latest hoax (coronavirus) just to remind people that everything we are told is utter bullshit and it always has been! Wake up sheeple...
You sure that the Japanese aren't just really good at cleaning up gargantuan amounts of 'radioactive wasteland'?
yeah, that thousands of years of 'fallout' are really hindering progress in Japan hmm?
Ok enough sarcasm. I agree with you, but good luck getting anyone to step out of the cognitive dissonant bubble and actually do some research further than horribly faked 'nuke explosion' vids :)
Now is the time - they are almost grasping 911, coronahoax, voter fraud, masks, and vaccinations so maybe nukes are not beyond hope.
Yep I've known about the atomic bomb being fake glad to see others know about it to.
🤣
Not very many yet I suspect, but getting started handing out the first red pills is always the fun part
This is hilarious.
For once I can't decide if it's funny or sort of cunning...
The bit's too deadpan for my tastes though.
It takes itself too seriously.
So it's too deadpan to be hilarious?
Or just too real to be tasteful?
Too deadpan for my vote specifically.
Still hilarious, for one reason or another.
Oh well, truth is not determined by votes!
Neither are elections but that will be another post...
"...truth is not determined by votes!"
Indeed.
I'd say truths, perhaps with the notable exception of certain simple mathematical truths, are so elusive as to be beyond human capacity to apprehend if they even properly exist at all.
Our universe is filled to the brim with invincible uncertainty, and completely devoid of underlying meaning.
My votes in particular aren't monetarily worth much one way or the other in any case.
Thanks for the engagement and the diversion.
Here's an external link to what seems to me like an interesting paper in return. Perhaps you'll find it interesting too.
Cheers.
wow!!! are you telling me nukes are a psy op??? I did not even think to ask this... most recently I have thought that asbestos is a psy op
Yes nuclear bombs are definately a psyop, nuclear power is a more complex scam, and i haven't looked at asbestos yet
really??? I am going to look into this maybe... today I heard about a town in Australia that is for sale but it was an asbestos mine - it's called Wittenoom
https://www.travel-tramp.com/wittenoom-blue-asbestos-abandoned-mining-town-western-australia/ - if Nuclear power is a scam where are we getting our power? What about chernobyl and what about the tsunami that hit fukushima? what about the pacific ocean being completely radioactive? that is all true...I mean my family lives in CA on the coast and the shellfish are all dead...
chernobyl is ok - some people still live there
losing the nuclear power had little effect on japan's power
the pacific coast is fine - that is where i live too!
asbestos does seem to cause lung cancer but i haven't researched that
Will you point my a post on this because when I started to look into it all I found were flat earth posts...
http://www.big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/index.html
wow thanks
I don't buy it, so is nuclear energy as a whole a hoax?
I didn't say nuclear energy is a hoax, I said nuclear bombs are a hoax. To me these are two separate subjects.
Can you name one nuclear bomb detonation and provide authentic photo proof, or any subsequent cancer records of the area?
Nuclear energy is a real rabbit hole, but it's not as clear cut and I haven't done a shitload of research into it so don't want to go there at this point. Two things I will be asking if I do: how was Japan affected by the loss of it's nuclear power plants, and what is the cancer rate like in Tokyo now?
This concern with cancer records seems misplaced to me. There are many ways cancer is caused, not only by ionizing radiation. Some types of non ionizing radiation cause cancer, as well as chemical carcinogens, or simply genetic difficulties among others.
With the mentioned confounds alone, raw data on cancer rates wouldn't even wholly and directly correlate to the deployment of nuclear weapons. You'd need to somehow isolate from the numerous non nuclear weapon related cancer incidences and, at the very least in the case of genetic effects, it could be practically infeasible to tease out the variables in a population wide study.
The official story is that "nukes" cause cancer for more than 1000 years.
If the cancer rates in cities that have been "nuked" are lower than those in near identical cities that have not been "nuked" then that is massive evidence that the official story is utter bullshit.
This is a nice tourist attraction. Good job it's perfectly safe to go there after only 75 years!
Amazing how that building on the left was "nuke-proof" apart from the roof (Hiroshima, Japan)
I think I see what you're saying here.
I can buy that the 'official story' is just a lie, given of the propensity for lying that people have. In fact that longer paper I shared gives something of a quantitative measure of how effectively people lie with the p parameter of the equation.
Though it could also be mere ignorance about the effects of a new technology, or how those effects differ from the theoretical model's predictions.
There are always unknown unknowns. Perhaps even more than there are malicious thoughts, given the vast scale of the universe and it's impregnable mystery.
I'm saying that building not being obliterated is clear 100% proof that a "nuclear" bomb was not dropped on Hiroshima.
Your capacity to make simple things unintelligible is spectacular!
I think it's possible for a building not to be obliterated though near a large explosion. The number of factors involved is immense, and the system is chaotic as it nearly always is. Rare, unexpected, and paradoxical things do happen.
It's not some sort of law of nature that a "nuclear" bomb would have destroyed that building; it's no a priori truth. Without that status it seems to me that the notion that it's "...clear 100% proof..." is far overblown. Sure you could take it as a bit of evidence, it might even be somewhat persuasive, but it's not an open and shut case unless that building not being obliterated is a necessary and sufficient condition to prove a "nuclear" bomb was not dropped.
That this is all the 'proof' one would need seems a bit of a stretch to me, to say the least.
Also thank you for your kind words.
I have read your post, but from a theoretical standpoint if I can use the energy of nuclear fission in a reactor, I might be also able to use it in a bomb. It is not like I am a Professor on the topic though.
This would consequently mean that many physicians are complicit in the hoax and while I would not put my hand in the fire for all of them I think the physical science community has still some people who are very interested in truth and those would uncover the hoax.
I'm going to be picky here and repeat:
Can you name one nuclear bomb detonation and provide authentic photo proof, or any subsequent cancer records of the area?
OK, I can't. Therefore I am giving you a 0.5% chance of nuclear energy being a hoax. It is a rather big increase from 0%
Wow, thanks, got you wondering then!
That's an infinite percent increase, are you sure it isn't a bit over generous?
😉
I know, it might be more around 0.1 tbh, however the seed of doubt has been planted.