WERE HIROSHIMA & NAGASAKI DESTROYED BY NUCLEAR BOMBS... OR SOMETHING ELSE?

An interview with Dr. Michael Palmer, author of Hiroshima Revisited

Hey Folks,

As you’re aware, we here at Nevermore Media are big believers in the ethos of “Question Everything”.

Everyone reading this was educated with a certain “propaganda consensus” which emerged in the aftermath of WWII. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to call this propaganda consensus an international Mythos.

An increasing number of people are now questioning different aspects of this Mythos.

When considering the history of the Second World War, we would do well to remember that history is written by the victors. If the Axis Powers had won, you can bet that history would look a lot different.

There were concentration camps in Canada, for instance, in which Japanese people were interned for the crime of being Japanese. Because Canada was on the winning side of WWII, it was easy enough to to sweep such crimes against humanity under the rug. After all, one must consider things within their historical context and blah blah blah…

The truth is that the official story of WWII leaves a lot of questions unanswered, ranging from why Wall Street financiers sponsored the rise of the Nazis to why the Allies firebombed Dresden.

One such question is whether it really was necessary to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the Germans had already surrendered.

In the WWII Mythos, a drastic and dramatic display of overwhelming firepower was necessary to bring the Japanese to their knees because they were so fanatical that they would have kept fighting tooth and nail for years after they had already lost. But is this really true?

The Japanese certainly were fanatical at that time, so perhaps there is some truth to this story. But let’s be clear - the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki targeted civilians. They were massive atrocities. I believe the appropriate term is “crimes against humanity”. Were they were really “necessary”? Are crimes against humanity ever necessary?

The rabbit hole goes deep when it comes to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and in recent years there is even a contingent of people who are questioning whether those cities were really destroyed by nuclear bombs… or by a combination of conventional bombs and chemical weapons.

If this sounds totally crazy to you, I encourage you to suspend your disbelief and check out this article:

What you are about to read is an interview of a scientist by the name of Dr. Michael Palmer, who until recently was a faculty member at the University of Waterloo in Ontario.

It was written by a Croatian comrade and has been edited for clarity.

Enjoy!

Crow Qu’appelle

HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI NUCLEAR BOMBINGS WERE FAKED

An interview with Dr. Michael Palmer, author of Hiroshima Revisited

Here you can read the interview that I made in 2023. with Michael Palmer, M.D., author of the book Hiroshima Revisited, one of the few that exist in the world concerning the topic of nuclear skepticism. Until March 2022, he had a faculty position in the Chemistry Department of the University of Waterloo until he was prematurely retired because he refused to get injected with so-called COVID-19 vaccines.

In 2023, he published a book mRNA Vaccine Toxicity with contributions from Dr. Sucharit Bakhdi and other scientists. He was also working with Doctors for COVID ethics, organizing symposiums, and other activities connected to the exposure of the COVID scam.

Here we talked about his book Hiroshima Revisited, which researches available chemical, medical, historical, and other evidence and tries to answer the question at which basically everyone who encounters nuclear skeptic claims stops: Then what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Q: Mr. Palmer, how did you get into the topic of the nuclear scam?

A: Well, I came into the wider topic of conspiracy theories in 2016 when I stumbled across a video of Tower 7 of the World Trade Center collapsing, which was clearly a controlled demolition, and then I thought, “if we are still told this bullshit about 9/11, then what else is wrong?” So I went down this rabbit hole. One day I stumbled across the topic that the atomic bomb has been a hoax, and I read the testimony of Alexander de Seversky (Russian-American aviation pioneer), which I also use in my book. He was also on that website. And since I am working as a scientist myself, I just started to look into the science, and clues started to appear. In the book, I don't take a strong position on whether the nuclear weapons principle is a hoax. Probably that is so, more likely than not, but I would like someone with a more solid background in nuclear physics to make a study on that. That would be more difficult. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have all kinds of evidence, for example, medical evidence, even after so much has been suppressed. After the war, when Americans took over, they suppressed everything. We don't have any case histories of bomb victims, how they felt in the years 1945-1950 or even after. The only one you will get from this is the so-called Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission; all they ever published is the statistics that you cannot believe. The diagnostic criteria there are really useless from the medical point of view. They have such broad criteria, like heart disease; this is too vague, you know.

Q: I guess one purpose of the American occupation of Japan was (among others) to suppress all possible evidence.

A: Yes, correct, and it must have been an enormous effort, policing, and different plays.

Q: Tell me how to introduce someone new to the topic of fake Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, where to look first.

A: Well ok, one very strong piece of evidence, which I found relatively late, and is maybe a bit buried in chapter 3, is a declassified document which is a protocol of a secret committee meeting, which happened on 31st of May in 1945 and all high physicists from the Manhattan project were there, Oppenheimer, Compton, Fermi, and others, as well as politicians and military officers. In that meeting, Compton, who was a Nobel prize winner in physics and the head of the entire physics research there, said explicitly – We have not managed to purify plutonium and would need 2 or 3 years more to establish the purification process. So it is amazing that this document was declassified, probably due to some bureaucrats who didn't really understand what they were looking at. But we are to believe, right, that just a few weeks later the first plutonium bomb was set off in New Mexico. These two things are clearly incompatible. This protocol also says that the uranium bomb, the type which was allegedly used in Hiroshima, is now in production, suggesting they had several of them. The official story goes that the bomb set off in Hiroshima was the one-off, that was never built again.

Q: That would be an engineering miracle.

A: Yes. If you look into many of these statements they always say "We don't understand this specific problem, but the future research will clear it up." Everyone looks into their little niche and doesn't look at the whole picture, but the entire evidence is full of inconsistencies.

Q: What was, therefore, the research of your book specifically focused on?

A: I tried to cover all the bases, I tried to clog as many escape hatches of the official story is possible. I looked into the eyewitness testimonies that describe really a sustained play of fireworks. It's not just one detonation, we have small ones here and there. Flashes, smoke bombs … you have multicolored clouds. How does this fit into the atomic narrative? There are 20 testimonies of eyewitnesses which are really substantial on the symptoms displayed by the victims. One observation, which I'm still puzzled by honestly, is that we have multiple reports of people whose eyes have popped out of their faces. I have discussed this with a Japanese physician, a professor of plastic surgery, who helped me a couple of times and made a Japanese translation which will come out soon. He insisted that this was due to the use of some high explosives. I really don't know what to make out of it. Then you have many cases of respiratory distress. People had just inhaled something toxic, giving them a toxic lung edema. It's not totally specific for mustard gas but is a characteristic of toxic gases used in war. For example chlorine. The symptoms are similar. You get lung edema. Mustard gas does that too. On the other hand, radiation doesn't do that. Then you have the miracle survivors. One piece of evidence I came really early upon is by an American physician who was working at Osaka University Hospital in the fall of 1945, and has described a case of a survivor who had allegedly been 15 meters from the epicenter. (laughs) There are several such people. How does that work?

Q: Which chemical evidence have you found?

A: Most of it has to do with the fallout. That's the radioactive stuff which is produced directly in the detonation and then simply drops on the ground. It is picked later and measured. There should be some residue from the bombs. It is said that the bomb dropped at Hiroshima contained 50 kg of enriched uranium and of these 50 only one is said to actually have fissioned. The other 49, they should have found them somewhere right? In some samples, we find an absolutely tiny amount of uranium-235, and in others, you find nothing at all. Then you find cesium-147 and from these assumptions, if one kilogram had fissioned, we know that cesium would likely be 6% on average, so we can calculate what ratio should be in the fallout, and that never adds up. There is not a single sample that has a ratio that fits into the official story. In most samples, you find more cesium than it should be, and in a few slightly less. But typically, you find more cesium in relation to uranium. And for example, in Hiroshima, you have more cesium than in other regions of Japan, which were not exposed to the atomic bombing, but only affected by the global nuclear fallout during the cold war in the controlled area on the east coast of Japan. Hiroshima is South-east, and you have twice as much fallout as in Hiroshima.

One point that I still highlight is that plutonium was not yet available in 1945. Now there is an interesting story from Nagasaki where the plutonium bomb was set off. A group of researchers have dug up a sediment and looked at how much radioactivity is at which depth of the sediment. And they found out that the lowermost sediment that contains plutonium is still 15cm above the sediment which contains the particles from the burning of the city. If you divide the entire sediment by the number of years that have passed since you arrive at an average of some 7cm per year, so this 15cm would be two years. And that fits perfectly into this prediction of 1945. That they would still need two years before they had plutonium. The Japanese researchers said they don't know how this separation came about. The simplest explanation is that plutonium was simply spilt into the reservoir two years later. If the atomic bomb didn't exist it simply puts all of these inconsistencies in the place which otherwise doesn't make any sense.

Q: In summary, how do you think all of this was performed in the exact operation in August of 1945?

A: OK, these were the two key elements: One is creating the illusion of the atomic bomb, and the other is hiding the conventional means of destruction which were actually used. The illusion was created with these fireworks of sorts, that was quite striking for the people of Hiroshima to see how fancy it was. Nobody who has an understanding of what an atomic detonation should look like would create such fireworks. It was really done to create a psychological effect with a lot of liberties, maybe expecting that in the long term, they could suppress the testimonies entirely.

High explosives are, I think, the most likely explanation. In his book "Now It Can Be Told," the administrative chief of the Manhattan Project Leslie Groves says that they had built a mockup of a Nagasaki bomb, which they called “Pumpkin”—so apparently that was a big heavy bomb, several tons—and they had built B-29 bombers for delivery of such bombs; and the number of planes they built in this manner was around 42. So that was a very high number. Groves claims it was only for practice purposes, but why would you need 42 planes to deliver one bomb? It's a bit excessive. What I think is that they used these pumpkin bombs to create big bangs in the city. Now this is a little difficult to reconcile with the various testimonies, so it seems that quite a few witnesses perceived the flash but didn't hear the big bang at the same time. If you have these pumpkin bombs they should also make an impression a bit further away, I would expect they should be heard throughout the entire city. But if the timing of the flashes and detonations was not right… I don't know. That is one part that I feel least certain about. What I do feel certain about is the use of napalm and mustard gas for killing. A very small number of testimonies I have found describe detonations of conventional explosives on the ground. There are few, interestingly, so therefore I think those bombs with napalm and mustard gas were detonated in the air, probably inside a big cloud. First, they created the cloud, and then they dropped these bombs into the cloud. There are actually witnesses that describe falling flames like lava from the volcano—like napalm. I can't think of anything else that fits with this description.

Q: What do you think was the main purpose of creating this whole event?

A: I make the case in my final chapter that it didn't have anything with war as such. There was no need for the Japanese to be shocked to surrender because they had already asked for peace negotiations more than a half year before. The demands they’d made were only to keep the independent state and to keep the emperor. Otherwise they pretty much agreed to subordinate themselves to the control of USA. And these were exactly the points implemented after the war, so there was really no military reason to drag out the war longer if Americans had simply taken the Japanese request for peace negotiations. What I do think really happened is that Americans were already controlled by a hidden power center, which forced them to stay in the war longer. The Japanese were forced to collude. They couldn't do it without Japanese knowledge and cooperation. In both cities, there was no air alarm at the time of the bombing. I chanced upon a video—unfortunately, I couldn't find it again—of a Japanese woman who was working in the air defense of Nagasaki at the time. She tried to raise the air alarm but someone blocked her from doing so. Unfortunately, at the time, I didn't realize the significance of it. And I couldn't find it again so I don't mention it in the book.

Q: Do you think then that all the states that claim to have nuclear weapons have to be in some kind of agreement?

A: I'm not sure if it's some kind of agreement. It could be simply that they realized what was going on and equipped themselves to use that nuclear propaganda. For example, somebody like Kim Jong Un just has to create some sort of big bang under the ground and claim it's a nuclear detonation or build a rocket and shoot it into the Pacific Ocean and declare himself a nuclear power. It's easy to do.

Q: Although it was not the topic of the book, do you have some thoughts about other nuclear tests during the cold war?

A: I have seen a couple of videos that are clearly cheap fakes. In those times, you would see them only once in the cinema and never again, and you wouldn't take in all the details. We are told that bombs that were set off on the Bikini Atoll in 1946 were also nuclear bombs. That still collides with Compton's statement; it still wouldn't be ready in 1946. Plutonium could be available only in 1948. They also look fake. You see ships undisturbed. If such a big thing erupts out of the sea, the ship that is close by would somehow be flooded away. I wonder how they created such illusions. It could have been simply video editing, but what I have also found in the medical records were cases of retinal burns. It's striking that there are no cases of retinal burns in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many witnesses have reported looking directly into those flashes but no one got their eyes burnt. On the other hand, there are reports of American soldiers who allegedly did get their eyes burnt, and there are photos to show it in the medical documentation. I think it’s true. They wouldn't create this difficulty for themselves wantonly; it would draw attention to the original atomic bombing. They tried to clear this difficulty of the original atomic bombing by claiming there is at least one injury report, but that is not true. I actually dug up a Japanese paper, and it was clear that there was no retinal burn. Then there is a question: how did those soldiers get them? Clearly, there must have been some very bright flash of sorts. I think what you might want to do if you want to fake a nuclear detonation … why not build a conventional nuclear reactor underground with a strong casing and let it simply wait until it goes off. The stronger the casing, the further the chain reaction can go, and then you have some sort of nuclear detonation. Nuclear reactors work, and that's an established fact, and we also know they work more easily than the proper bombs because they slow down the electrons using the modulator, and that increases the efficiency of the chain reaction of the electron capture within several orders of magnitude. So that works and it is perfectly plausible that reactors would work and bombs would not work. In that context, it is interesting to note that in the movie Dr. Strangelove, at one point Dr. Strangelove himself explains that "as long you wish to bury bombs, there is no limit in their size". That almost sounds to me like Kubrick wanted to give us a clue they were burying reactors and faking detonations in this way. There is nuclear fallout throughout the world which has to come from somewhere, so some sort of nuclear reactions or explosions have been engineered. But the question is, can these devices be compact and light enough to put in a rocket and shoot across the ocean? Probably not. Dr. Strangelove was trying to tell us that.

Q: There have been theories that Kubrick was also involved in faking videos of these detonations.

A: There is an interesting twist to the Strangelove movie. It apparently started as a drama and it was turned into a comedy only later on. Kubrick was known for being meticulous in his background research, so what I suspect is that during this research he figured it out, and then he could simply abandon the project or turn it into a big laugh. By not spilling the beans on what he had found he gained the trust of powerful people and therefore he was picked up to also stage the moon landing.

Q: Tell me, as you were collaborating with Japanese people, how strong is the nuclear propaganda there? Do you think any discussion about it would be possible there?

A: I have been in contact with only a small number of Japanese. I hit upon a Japanese scientist who wrote a paper on nuclear flash burns, which struck me with the originality of its experimental methods and also because he used a remarkable variety of sources. I thought, “this is an interesting guy.” I got in touch with him and he ended up helping me. Initially, I didn't tell him what I was working on. Once I was done I sent him an electronic copy of my book and he said it was interesting, and he will translate it. He actually found a publisher, and it will be printed by a regular, if small, academic publishing house. I have been in touch with a few others. For example, a Japanese historian who I told what I was working on. I told her what my hypothesis was, and she didn't believe me but was quite nice and gave me some helpful pointers. You know, here in the West people can be very dismissive and sometimes openly aggressive, but I have not found this attitude with any of the Japanese. They were always polite, they said “we don't believe you,” but they didn't cut off the communication for that reason. There was just one person that stopped responding to me, but that was an exception. In this sense, it seems they are really more open to engaging with different ideas, while in the West this culture has really been lost. I think it's quite different from the 70s or 80s when I was young. I think there was more of a debate. You could disagree more robustly and that was not the end of the world.

Q: It's great news that your book will be published there. If it starts some kind of debate, Japanese people could continue researching and find much more themselves probably.

A: Yes, that's what I wrote in the foreword: I wished the Japanese would actually take it on because they have access to all this literature, eyewitness testimonies, and so on, so I hope they will make something out of it.

Hiroshima Revisited is available online on Palmer's website or as a printed version on Lulu.com