No nukes? Yes folks. There are no nukes.

The following words are taken from another blog:

Consider that the nuclear bomb was impossible to make. The science was not there. The theories were incorrect. The geniuses of all geniuses were fabrications. Not even a thousand billion dollars could produce the impossible – a weapon of apocalyptic proportions, that produces the heat of 10,000 suns. Just bollocks. The bomb never made anyone surrender. It never won a war. It did not deter wars. It did not stop communism. The communists were never any nuclear threat. The cold war was based on poorly done fantasy movies. The build-up of military industrial complex, which was sustained to counter the Soviet nuclear threat, was actually a big lie. The massive secret infrastructure to counter the Soviet nuclear threat was a big lie as well. The space race based on superior technology is in question consequently. Excuse me, but the whole rationale for building the massive state super complex after WWII is a complete fraud. And all the nuclear paranoia promoted by the state is down right evil. Even now the rhetoric, that States fart out on mass media about this or that power trying to obtain nuclear weapons, is a complete charade.

I agree with them in total. They are from Vexman’s Thoughts, and if you follow the link you will find that I have reprinted almost the entire post. It is short and concise.

I am linking it here because Vexman was for a short time a writer here, and my heart sank as he used this forum for a pogrom against Jews, specifically those in Russia during the communist era. I unceremoniously removed him as a writer, and realize that I could have handled it better. For the “unceremonious” part of that I have deep regret, but for the removed part I do not. But I bear him no ill will, and did not act out of personal dislike. Far from it.

Notice the sentence in the middle:

The cold war was based on poorly done fantasy movies.

The words that finally propelled me into his removal were about Russian communists murdering their own citizens, not just a few, but 700,000 by means of a gunshot to the back of the head. Such a notion is fantastical, to be able to sneak up on that many people, subdue them and then execute them, outsiders of course able to keep track of the number of victims. It did not happen. We would not do such a thing, nor would anyone else. It is beyond the pale.

Since we know now that the Cold War was a fantasy, we also have to realize that the Russians participated, so that there was cooperation at all levels in the hoax. Below are words from Jacques Ellul, taken from his book Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes:

…propaganda offers release on a grand scale. For example, propaganda will permit what so far was prohibited, such as hatred, which is a dangerous and destructive feeling and fought by the society. But man always has a certain need to hate, just as he hides in his heart the urge to kill. Propaganda offers him an object of hatred, for all propaganda is aimed at the enemy. And the hatred it offers him is not shameful, evil hatred that he must hide, but a legitimate hatred, which he can justly feel. Moreover, propaganda points out enemies that must be slain, transforming crime into a praiseworthy act. (P152)

For the Cold War to work on the minds and attitudes of Americans, we needed to hate the Soviets. In order to form a hatred so intense that any action would be seen as justified (the invasions of Korea and Vietnam, for example), giant lies had to be invented and promulgated. For that they called on our “historians.” You will find that all stories about the atrocities of Bolsheviks and Stalin are documented by that group. Without historians, propaganda does not work on the educated classes, and those are the ones for whom it is critically important it be effective.

Pollster Elmo Roper in his early research found that ninety percent of the America public is “politically inert.” They are easily managed by symbols, such as jet aircraft penetrating buildings or evil bearded monsters with sinister eyes. That ninety percent will never read a history tract, but will watch a TV show or movie, stand for the national anthem and become sexually aroused as jets fly over ball games. They are under control, always.

For those of us in the remaining ten percent, trust in our own abilities is essential. We of that smaller group have to read, form opinions, and those opinions have to be imagined to be the result of critical and independent thought. For this purpose we are given the historians, people like Chomsky and all those other fakes who  populate the history and current events section at Barnes and Noble. We are not indoctrinated so much as we self-indoctrinate.

I was not alive and not present, yet I know that the Russians did not murder 700,000 of their own by any means. The starvation that might have taken place under Stalin was not deliberate policy, but as Mao and the Chinese showed us, there can be ineptitude on a grand scale (if those stories are to be believed). Just as we now realize that neither the Russians or Americans have nuclear weapons, we also know that they can tell lies about each other and make those lies believed. Our “intellectuals” are the key.

With regard to real and conscious threats, a frequent reaction is to expand them with fables. Americans create fables about the Communist peril, just as Communists create fables about the Fascist peril – and at that moment anxiety sets in. It is tied to rumors, to the fact that the real situation is inaccessible, to the diffuse climate of fear, and to the ricocheting of fear from one person to the next. (P154)

The horrors of communism were a fable. One could make up such tales about Canadians, equally fantastic, and they would not be believed. Canadians are too much like us, too many of us have visited that country. Russians were a different culture, far away, so that making them into monsters was far easier. It came to a point where anything said about them as our enemy was thought to be true, and any words uttered by them in defense were automatically regarded as false. Thus did our own rulers own our minds.

Vexman is still linked to the right here and does good research and writing. His piece on Lockerbie is top-notch, as is so much of his other work (on the ozone hole, for instance). I wish him success and lots of readers. I read him. But for that one episode, he would have added much to this blog. I bear him no ill will. I was victimized in total by the propaganda of the Cold War, and was of a level that put me in that ten percent that self-indoctrinates. By the time Vexman wrote his words here, I was over it. That’s all.

42 thoughts on “No nukes? Yes folks. There are no nukes.

  1. I tend to believe there was a quid pro quo negotiated between USA/USSR (Russia) – whereby the russians would get to pretend they sent someone into space (the monkey) in exchange we would get the Atomic bomb credibility while the russians got the space credibility as we both worked to catch up to each others headstart (cough, bullshit)…

    way back i starting asking people, esp patriotic moonshine drinkers, if we hate russia so much, why do we depend on them for space missions today? why would we work with them in space, yet against them on land? i just ask questions mostly…works much better than positive statements…for most people…get THEM to question themselves…i’m just a messenger…

    Liked by 1 person

      1. To mention the bandwagon fallacy – multiple sites/links are no proof of correctness. All MSM stations do the same.
        And MM’s trinity document proves that the Trinity photographs and thus most probably the trinity test is faked. But this is not proof that nuclear weapons do not exist.
        Just logic, and no proof of the contrary.


        1. That is indisputable. We cannot prove something does not exist. But it seems logical to presume that even the overlords would not want a weapon of such massive destructive potential, as there are among them wild men in the wings ready to take hold and use them.

          Another of MM’s lesser-discussed papers involved Dresden and what did not happen there, and he was at arm’s length about it, unwilling to say with absolute certainty that something akin to a firestorm did not happen there. It reminded me however of my older brother’s sabbatical in the 1990s spend at Leuven in Belgium where, he said, a massive cathedral had been bombed during the war but then painstakingly reconstructed to an exact replica of its former self. I wondered even then how people desperate for food and housing were able to do such a feat, and at that time it did not occur to me that he was repeating a fable.


          1. That is indisputable.

            The links and the given document are.

            We cannot prove something does not exist.

            The topic is about physics, and in physics, a proper experiment is proof. Either positive or negative.

            Another of MM’s lesser-discussed papers involved Dresden and what did not happen there, …

            So, the persons I know/knew who saw it burning are liars ?

            … he said, a massive cathedral had been bombed during the war but then painstakingly reconstructed to an exact replica of its former self. I wondered even then how people desperate for food and housing were able to do such a feat, …

            The rebuild supposedly happened years later, not in the late forties.
            And an attribute like “painstakingly” usually serves to justify the excessive costs. Nobody can do a real old/new comparison anyway, just with fuzzy photographs.


          2. Your skepticism is noted. We cannot prove the non-existence of something said to exist, but we can prove its existence by means of physical evidence, and this evidence is the matter of dispute, said to be lacking.

            Something happened at Dresden. The extent of that something is in question, as that city stands today pretty much as it did before. Rebuilt?

            The cathedral I mentioned is the only anecdotal evidence I know of to justify my skepticism about events like that. But I must add that the Germans allowing the British to escape at Dunkirk, Stalin being “surprised” by Barbarossa, the massive invasion on D-Day for which the most important photos were lost, the allies marching under the Arc de Triomphe to “liberate ” Paris in an obliviously fake photograph, Hitler’s obviously staged death … leads me to be un-trusting of all events of that time.

            But many terrible things happened, that I know.


          3. “Hitler’s obviously staged death”

            @Mark, I’m still trying to figure out Hitler. Miles Mathis indicates Hitler was most probably just another tool, but what happened to him after the war (if his death was indeed faked as suggested)? Please point to any other researchers/blogs that are working in this area.


          4. Why didn’t the Nazis seize Gibraltar during WWII? It would have cut off the Med. from the Allies and brought Spain into the war on the Axis side. To lengthen the war and bring the US into it and then firebomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


  2. I wish more truth bloggers would research and write more about who exactly, if possible, are doing the controlling and manipulating – name names. Miles Mathis writes about the “8 families” or so that really control the U.S. via the intelligence agencies. I just recently found these blogs, and it blew my mind – it all made sense now, and it made me extremely angry. I need the learn more.


      1. Thanks for the link. Many of the names listed are actually common, surprisingly – at least among the people that I know and have met. Although my own last name is not listed there, my mother’s and grandmother’s maiden names are listed (maybe mom and grandma kept some things from me?! – LOL). If I’m supposed to be part this hidden, elite cabal running the world and running these ridiculous frauds, I never got the memo, the membership card, the secret decoder ring and taught the secret handshake. There are so many questions, like who decides who is “in” and who is “out”? Can this system be defeated? Would spreading this information even help (like writing my congressman?)?


    1. @Mark, I’m still trying to figure out Hitler.

      MM scratched the genealogical surface, and I guess he is correct. But here are some other facts:
      Even mainstream “historians” admit Hitler had doubles (notice the plural). Supposedly for public appearances.
      The only positive identification by people supposedly witnessing his corpse (not his death !) is by trousers and shoes. Yes, you read correct. A corpse, with face and upper body covered in blankets, was identified as Hitler because the trousers and shoes are supposedly the same he wore.
      The skull fragment attributed to him – that with the bullet hole in the cranium – was DNA tested. It is female, and not from Eva Braun.
      These are just the facts that mainstream “history” admits. Draw your own conclusions.


  3. Let me first say that I’m really glad you finally explained what was driving your actions back then. Now I can understand you, at last. I’ll try to be as concise and short as possible, given the subject that is so huge it would deserve its own blog, not just a short post or even shorter section of one comment’s section.

    “The words that finally propelled me into his removal were about Russian communists murdering their own citizens, not just a few, but 700,000 by means of a gunshot to the back of the head. Such a notion is fantastical, to be able to sneak up on that many people, subdue them and then execute them, outsiders of course able to keep track of the number of victims. It did not happen. We would not do such a thing, nor would anyone else. It is beyond the pale.”

    As much as you think I might have an issue with it, there is a couple of things you need to try and understand. First of all, in every single country that has been ruled by communists, there are numerous reports and evidence preserved to prove you are completely wrong when thinking, that mass murders are fantasies. Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Litua, Kazakhstan, Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia,…, and especially East Germany and Romania – they all have witnessed what communist were capable of, something that I’m trying to present to those unfamiliar with the subject of “life under communism” as real.

    Another extremely important fact when arguing about 700.000 figure is, that you lack basic knowledge about Russia’s internal struggle for power in the historical context. At least two main factions were struggling against each other inside the Bolshevik regime: the Trotskyists, which were mostly Jewish (evidence based), which had a rabid and even racist hatred for the Russian people and Orthodox Christianity (evidence based), who had the full support of the West (evidence based), especially western financial circles (Jewish bankers; evidence based)) and who basically ran Soviet Russia from 1917 to 1938 when Stalin and Beria directed a terror campaign – aimed at finally ridding the Party from the many Trotskyists it still contained (even if Trotsky himself had lost power in 1927 and left the USSR in 1929). In order to purge the Party, Stalin brought his own, trusted, Georgians (like Beria himself) and together they unleashed a brutal campaign to crack down on those who had themselves been in charge of terror just a few months before. There is a general consensus amongst pro and anti Soviet historians that some of the most vicious and horrible political repressions in the Soviet Union took place between 1934 and 1937 when the secret (political) police was headed by two truly demonic figures, Genrikh Yagoda and Nikolai Ezhov. The vast majority of those 700.000 murdered was evidence of change of power, which was greatly covered by researcher Grover Furr as with work of many others alike.

    By the way, this was not the first bloody purge conducted by Stalin. Before crushing the “old” secret (political) police Stalin first used it to conduct an extremely violent and bloody purge of the Soviet Armed Forces including its most famous figure, Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevskii and his family. I won’t go into the details of these purges, but I will say that I fully agree with “Viktor Suvorov” (aka Vladimir Rezun) who in his amazing book “The Cleansing” makes the case that Stalin was absolutely correct in purging the Soviet military from these generals and officers before WWII (for those who can read Russian, you can find this book online here: ).

    So what Stalin did is this: he unleashed the Bolshevik “old guard” (i.e. Trotskyists) against the military and once the military was purged, he then unleashed his own “new guard” (“Stalinists”) against the Trotskyists and purged the Party from most of them. Total body count: around 700.000. Very very ruthless indeed but, in all honesty, also very smart. Think of it this way: Stalin had inherited a Party which was full of rabid, treasonous and simply crazy elements and a party which was still full of Trotskyists (which makes sense, as more than anybody else Leon Trotsky should be “credited” with creating the Soviet military, winning the Civil War and crushing all internal opposition in a huge campaign of russophobic terror).

    Personally, I am left with a sense of not knowing enough when it comes to this particular part of Russian history. Sometime soon, much more will be published at my blog than it’s written here in this short comment. A second revision, if you like. So everything I’ll be able to share with you is my gut feeling, my best guesstimate if you want, of what Stalin and the Soviet era represented for Russia.

    But while looking mostly at this “muddy” part of Russian history and that isolated 700.000 victim figure, you’ve completely missed the point of the whole series. While you may continue to believe that everything about the communism was invented and just cheap propaganda of Cold war, my point with the series remains the same – when looking at the communism as Marx’s invention, it is obvious that we, mostly Slavic nations, received such communism as some kind of punishment. In comparison to the “democratic” West, there is absolutely no doubt that we could’ve only dreamed about human rights you were granted by default. After seeing the mass graves in Slovenia, I tend to believe that there are so many alike in other ex-communist countries and there seem to be no logical or evidence-based reasons for me to change my mind about it.

    Couple of points to think about:
    – The historical Russia has been murdered and completely destroyed by the Bolshevik/Soviet regime. There is no continuity of any type between the rule of Czar Nicholas II and the Lenin-Trotsky duo. Therefore, there is no continuity between what came before and after these two Bolshevik leaders.
    – There is lately a misguided attempt at completely white-washing Stalin and the entire Soviet period. This is not surprising by itself. The vast majority of the modern Russian elites have direct family ties to the Soviet elites and the infamous Soviet nomenklatura. It is only natural for these people to want to justify the actions of their family members. While there are millions of Russians whose families did suffer terrible during the Soviet era, a much smaller proportion of these families then made it into the Soviet elites and, therefore, into the new, post-Soviet elites which run Russia today.
    – Stalin was most definitely no worse than his predecessors and that in many ways, the nature and policies of the Soviet regime did change for the better under his rule. Still, I remain convinced that he was a ruthless leader, who lead the country by a careful mix of terror and inspiration and who did not hesitate to sacrifice millions of people when needed to achieve a goal he had set.


    1. I am prepared to simply step back and let you have this argument, as I don’t have the knowedge or background to counter your words. I am not an apologist for communists or communism, and also know that rule of non-democratic countries is a whole ‘nuther ball game. Totalitarian regimes can resort to thugs to achieve their objectives, where in democratic ones the same objectives require sophisticated propaganda as we here in the US daily drown in. We are so deep in it that nothing is to be trusted, not our education, history, economic system, science, even nightly news. You see where a huge hoax, perhaps the biggest in history surrounds nuclear weapons, so perhaps you can see why I am skeptical of Russian history written in English by Western historians. Our own history is fake. Why would they tell the truth about a perceived enemy?

      My only travel in the East is so limited, Budapest and Prague, and not for a long period. I claim no knowledge but I got a little taste of it, being issued toilet paper by a man at a desk guarding the bathroom in Budapest, as it was even still in short supply in 2011?! In Prague we spoke with a waiter at length, and as we did he looked all about, eyes darting, saying he was being watched. He wanted to go to America, and when we asked where, he described Canada, and my heart felt his futility. He was not going anywhere, I knew, and his mind had been destroyed by agitprop of the Soviet days, just as American agitprop post-9/11 has destroyed millions of minds. Another Ellul thought, he said that agitprop destroys the brain, and tha people never recover from it. (I read that book maybe 19 years ago, so I guess you could say it affected me.)

      So I take everything as possible and remain skeptical too. I will follow your work. I know communism, while a fake philosophy, was propped up by military dictatorships, and that song is as old as history.


      1. I never wanted an argument with you about the communism. Or anybody else for that matter. We don’t need to agree on every single subject, but we can still be on friendly terms about it. Borrowing your words, I bear no bad ill to anybody.This infamous series that I’ve started back then, is still in the study process as I find it important enough – but it’s so heavy to bear with, I can’t do it for more than a few days in a row lately. Dealing with dirty secrets of Reds is nothing like fun, believe me, but I just have to finish what I’ve started.

        Propaganda was a nasty thing over here, too. But over here, the fear it spread to reality is visible, it received physical property. There is at least one underground bunker less then 5min by foot away, in every city, wherever you go. I know, I practiced evacuation drills with my classmates as a junior just like anybody else over here, part of our education I guess. Not to mention how unbelievable it would sound to anybody here, if I was to tell the story of my little town. Over here, some ex-WWII anti-tank trenches were filled with those who swore their oath to previous regime. Reds were merciless. That’s why I’m shortly moving out, I can’t bear the fact I was/am walking or driving over unmarked mass graves anymore. For that part of my country’s history, I’m ashamed of it.

        I’ll drop the subject here as enough was already said in this post and few comments about our dispute, I think. I’m slowly chewing on this morbid subject and will eventually finish my series.

        I’m happy that you made this huge step, Mark. Hopefully, when I reach your age, I’ll be as wise as you are now and able to solve my disputes like you’ve done with ours.


        1. I grow up within the communists and from the time perspective it wasn’t that bad. It wasn’t much different to what we have today. Except for the today’s overproduction of everything, full shops, addiction to consuption, etc. Nobody was hungry and in general people were more friendly to each other. It seems to me that the higher the standard of living gets, the more unhappiness it causes. Today we are living in what I call “Communism second edition”. There is no free market, everything is controlled by a small group of internationally acting corporations. All the mainstream propaganda sounds very much like TV in my youth. The shops are full of everything, we have more entertaining than we can stomach, many people have a decent live without having to work at all and still, there is more anger and frustration than we had in the cold war. Or is it only me?


        2. So we have something in common, it seems.
          And my wife’s family, which is Ukrainian, could tell you that not all stories about the Holodomor are fiction, to say the least.
          IMHO the actions of communist regimes bear a strong resemblance to the “glorious” Old-Testament genocide stories – eradicate every dissenter with his whole family. And after the goats were slaughtered, the sheep could live on in relative peace …
          Albeit I’m sure the OT is not a correct historical document, just the opposite.


          1. Interesting part for sure, this Ukrainian period, when their people were dying of hunger in extra-proportional difference, statistically compared to all hungered Russian nations of the time. It deserves yet another re-visioned chapter. Many countries were struck either by drought or heavy rainfall in the same period as Ukraine, however Ukrainians suffered significantly more. Why? Partially it was nature’s game, but it’s very weird to see Europe’s single biggest grain producer since the Roman empire suffer from hunger or to see their grain stock sold for export when people are dying of hunger, natural or induced, no matter how much smaller that export was since it started. But here’s a big twist, beside the name resembling by its root to the alleged holocaust:

            Apparently, this controversial subject dealing with “natural caused vs deliberately induced” hunger got hijacked by Ukranian neo-Nazists and ex-5th column members, who were using it for their own “defence”,to diminish the weight of their treason, when accused of collaborating with the German Wermacht and murdering their own countryman. After 40+ years of their manipulation and hiding of evidence, on top of Russia’s own manipulations, there are so few sources, that are trustworthy so they could be used as uncompromising for any analysis. Some Russian archive documents were lately proved as forgeries, so that source is obviously compromised as well. Luckily, there were some witnesses that left their testimonies before passing away, but than again we have an issue with such sources as they’re practically useless to research about the overall quantities of grain produced, sold as export and/or confiscated by NKVD forces. A real mess to get through in search for some truth, in short. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, I guess.

            Can’t comment on comparison to Old testament stories. Not my cup of tea. I’d presume this world has seen nothing new ever since Old testament was allegedly written. So finding some similarities with “old” way of treating one’s enemies is not that strange. Or is it?


    2. I believe I already told you this. In my opinion a lot of people from the show trials of 30’s were teleported to Israel. On the wiki page of Maxim Litvinov we get this quote “Stalin immediately directed Molotov to “purge the ministry of Jews.”[16][20] Recalling Stalin’s order, Molotov commented, “Thank God for these words! Jews formed an absolute majority in the leadership and among the ambassadors. It wasn’t good.” . Well, Molotov was married since 1921 to Polina Zhemchuzhina who in 1949 was charged with Zionism. On her wiki page we get “In a secret meeting of the Politburo on August 10, 1939, the agenda item number 33, “Regarding Comrade Zhemchuzhina” and her alleged “connections to spies”, led to a request to verify that information by the NKVD.”. Read the wikipedia pages for more insider jokes.
      Overall I believe it was important that the Soviet Union should appear to be less Jewish during WW2. Also agents were required for the creation of Israel after the war. The show trials of 30’s probably provided a lot of agents that changed their identity and played an important role in the creation of Israel. Of course these Jewish agents were probably from important families, not your average Jew.
      I would also bet that the modern Russian elite not only have family ties to the Soviet elite, but they have ties to the aristocracy of Tsarist Russia. In other words, they are the same families. When you read about the people involved in the revolution you see a lot of aristocrats that were pro-Bolshevik. For some people we probably cannot make the connection because the links were buried. For example they say that Yuri Gagarin was not related to the Gagarin noble family (hard for me to accept considering everything else).


      1. Mass exportation rewritten as mass execution in order to camouflage a group of agents moving within swarms of disenfranchised refugees as they moved from point A to point Israel while their real identities lay under tilled earth with a few sharks teeth- I find that more reasonable than simply murdering hundreds of thousands for ideological reasons. The trope here is that TROTSKY! lived in the hearts of enough people that STALIN! had to exterminate them all. Try feeding them and filtering their water in exchange for a simple loyalty oath. Most people will not risk their lives for political rhetoric. Most people need their plumbing fixed and a hot cup of coffee. If they can get that in Israel because Poppa Joe’s larders are all “empty”, what’s the average Joe going to do?
        Trotsky and Stalin and Lenin (and their real identities) all rode in on the same Wall Street backed horse. Like Dubya and O’Bama, two banker backed actors sold as two distinct ideologues, scheduled regime change is always dressed up with propaganda to justify the change. I guess Russians need a good nightmare bloodbath narrative to get in line while Americans only need their health care benefits threatened.
        I suggest looking into this topic: The lack of evidence of persecution of Christians by Romans despite the millennia of insistence to the contrary. This is an example of terrors with a capitol T never having happened yet became ingrained into the cultural fabric and helped justify unconscionable behavior by the eventual Church Triumphant against its detractors. To sell an agreed upon regime change (Bishops replacing governors- Monastery forts replacing garrisons) the victors had to appear a priori as victims. It’s one of the most evergreen cons there is.


        1. I wonder if the Christian persecution has its origins in a great catastrophe. Something similar to what is presented in this pdf . In this pdf book the author also considers the possibility that the destruction of the 100 years War was due to natural causes and historians assigned those causes to humans (see page 25). I already mentioned in other comments that I believe in a great catastrophe in the first millennium AD and that this catastrophe is connected to a shorter chronology. This pdf book is not about chronology but it is about interesting natural phenomena in the 14th century (and other centuries). I also find it interesting that in the 1st book or the 2nd book of Punica by Silius Italicus , Hannibal is compared to a comet (he describes how he kills his enemies) . So maybe a lot of historical horrors were due to natural disasters and for propaganda reasons the horrors were blamed on certain people. I leave this interesting quote about comet Halley “Its 1222 appearance is sometimes credited with inspiring Genghis Khan to dispatch his Mongols on an invasion of Europe, and its 1456 return famously overlapped with the Ottoman Empire’s invasion of the Balkans. The comet may have also crept into works of art. After viewing it in 1301, the Italian artist Giotto is said to have depicted Halley’s comet as the star of Bethlehem in his painting “Adoration of the Magi.”


    3. Excellent comment, Vexman.
      My wife is from the former Soviet Union. And since she is watching Russian TV mostly, I can confirm the ongoing attempts to whitewash Stalin and his period (I’mspeaking Russian fairly good).


      1. I agree. But he must be reading MM, Cluesforum, POM type sites and throwing in the Goldbug acting stuff.
        He even has a piece on “Mandela Effect” which, like MM takes the view that it’s a psy op.


  4. Regarding nukes possible or not – I am with Karl Popper here. A theory that is not falsifiable (cannot be proven right or wrong) is not scientific. For a “scientific” discussion we would need to drag MM’s science papers in. And design a proper experiment to prove this theory either way. Just like the “PI=4” experiments done by other people.
    Who organizes the fissible material ? 😉


    1. what PI=4 experiments? that funny youtube videos? Zach King makes more realistic clips. Come on, PI is by definition the relation between circumference and radius of a circle. Mathis’ entire Pi-paper is crap. One cannot take this seriously.


      1. I’m afraid you’ve missed several points with this subject.

        When you mention Pi=4, that has to relate to kinematic situations. Miles has never(!) disputed the fact, that Pi=3,14… when observing a static relation of circumference vs radius.

        He actually published a large number of science papers on this subject of Pi=4 in kinematic situations and not just one as you’ve incorrectly suggested.

        And sure it can be and was taken seriously, but apparently with you missing on quite many essential points in his papers about it.

        The YT videos you talk about are essential for anybody lacking visual capability to help them understand why Pi=4 in kinematic situations. What I can read from your comment is your frustration, probably related to lack of understanding of Miles’ conclusions on why Pi=4 in kinematic situations. Don’t be shy to admit that some topics are beyond your capability of understanding it, there is nothing shameful about it. But I do get annoyed when people are brave enough to post a rebuttal about an important topic, and don’t add any arguments or evidence to prove their statements.


    2. I believe we can have reasonable doubts without even taking in consideration the so called science. There are too many funny things no matter from what direction you approach the things related to the nukes. If there is some science involve, Mathis’ cesium hypothesis seems a reasonable guess (or something similar in nature).
      Maybe you are more interested in the science aspect, but given the high probability that the science is surrounded by many lies it is hard to know where to start. The materials involved are probably very restricted, so the average people cannot do experiments.
      What do you think about this . We can only guess that some people will laugh their ass off on their way to the bank.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Another great black hole of a money-pit? Jesus. I thought the LHC and BICEP-2 were as bad as it got, but the hole goes ever deeper.

        “Unlike existing fission reactors, which produce energy by splitting atoms, ITER would generate power by combining atoms, but it remains unclear whether the technology will work and whether it will eventually be commercially viable. ”

        $15B with overruns… Genius.


    3. Regarding the physics of nuclear detonation (fission), we find a massive contradiction in the laws of thermodynamics in the splitting of the uranium atom, enriched or otherwise. We have incoming neutrons knocking out one or both neutrons “binding” uranium (it’s not the neutrons actually binding anything, but the charge field of course – these “binding” neutrons should be seen as “connecting” rather than any physical binding force involved). This collision then allegedly knocks THOSE neutrons into other atoms, somehow retaining the velocity of the initial incoming neutrons. It breaks the conservation of energy precisely at that point – the incoming neutrons will transfer some energy to the “binding” neutrons, but not all of the energy, you see. They would almost always hit at some tangent, and bounce off with LESS energy, transferring some to the atomic structure but certainly not all.

      So what this means is that the impacted, “binding” neutrons would be knocked out with less energy than the incoming, firing neutrons. Enough energy to break more uranium atoms? Maybe, but again the energy would be diminished with each collision, not enhanced. Yes, there’s a lot of charge in Uranium, but that charge wouldn’t all be firing directly at the impacted neutron to magically propel it at a faster velocity, to match the initial incoming neutron. And the ambient field in any density of uranium is already very, very dense due to its size. It’s practically a molecule already, U-235 or -238.

      I have illustrated the phenomenon here in a short video, if anyone is interested:

      So while we have no reason to believe that fission doesn’t exist, we have many reasons to believe it doesn’t “chain react” into anything like a detonation. If that were the case, we would see uranium detonations occur in nature as well. Uranium is almost as common as tin or silver. And while it’s not hard evidence against, if all it took were pounding uranium with neutrons then anyone and every nation would already have nukes. A child could make one.


      1. Jared, just so you know, I do not control SPAM, where I found this. That is a WordPress algorithm, and part of it is more than two links, but there are other features I do not understand. So if you make a comment and it does not immediately appear, assume SPAM filter, contact me, and eventually it will see light of day. I have a very, very short list of banned commenters (1), and will even remove that guy in due time.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Thanks for looking into it, Mark. I appreciate the dialogue and have a lot to say about it, lately.

          Mathis has since written on the general topic confirming my assessment, that a fission detonation of the sort we’ve been fed isn’t possible in the way they say, if at all. It’s his latest paper on the Rutherford and the Electron, if anyone is interested.


  5. “[1] So while we have no reason to believe that fission doesn’t exist, we have many reasons to believe it doesn’t “chain react” into anything like a detonation. [2] If that were the case, we would see uranium detonations occur in nature as well. [3] Uranium is almost as common as tin or silver.”

    first phrase is a double negation; “we have no reason to believe that fission doesn’t exist” = “we have reason to believe that fission exists”, do we?
    second one is false. Then all the chemical industry we have would be “what we see in nature too”. I have never seen an oil field turn into a plastic or paint or a cow into a goulash, for that matter.
    third is a joke

    You may well be a serious researcher, I don’t discredit you by outlining these statements, but these ones are complete BS.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s