Is it really more logical? The presentation does raise questions, however it fails to explain so many things.
1. First of all, to address your concern, a small nuclear (fission) warhead does not make a place uninhabitable for long. A nuclear power accident can disburse MUCH more material, and create worse contamination than an air-burst w…
Is it really more logical? The presentation does raise questions, however it fails to explain so many things.
1. First of all, to address your concern, a small nuclear (fission) warhead does not make a place uninhabitable for long. A nuclear power accident can disburse MUCH more material, and create worse contamination than an air-burst warhead that largely blows away in the wind. (The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were detonated 2,000 ft in the air.)
2. Napalm and mustard gas do not create a strong uniform shock wave, yet windows over 2 km from hypocenter were blown out and many buildings damaged (not due to fire). The witness in the testimony below (and dozens, if not hundreds of others) reported ONE huge explosion that lifted her off the ground -- shortly after ONE blinding flash of light.
3. A VERY large formation of aircraft would be needed to destroy most of a city with napalm and mustard gas. (All?) Hiroshima witnesses report a clear day, with only ONE aircraft, and NO air-raid siren or alert -- which would be understandable for only a single plane.
4. The reports of radiation sickness are too numerous to be dismissed, as is the large number of cancer deaths, for decades following the events. "Bleeding from the gums" weeks after exposure (as reported below) does not sound typical of mustard gas.
5. There are multitudes of personal hibakusha (bomb survivor) testimonies; I have even reviewed/edited the translations of some of them for an anthology. Please read a few and see if you think the information is more consistent with napalm or an atomic bomb. The Hiroshima Peace Museum has also recorded many video testimonies, which are posted on YouTube. Here is one that I just finished watching; tell us where you think she is mistaken:
Yes, and I have spoken to Hiroshima eye witnesses too, back in the mid 1970's. Everyone spoke of a single plane and a cloudless sky. I think the fake story is a bit far-fetched, and serves little purpose anyway. These events happened a very long time ago.
I can address some of this going from my own research regarding how everything is done now with the multitude of staged, fake shooting events and other goings on. These people are the masters of all official narratives and they pay armies of collaborators to create false testimonies to back it all up. In the case of what goes on now many of these "victims" and "witnesses" turn out to all be from certain families when you do the actual genealogy and often even fairly closely related to one another. That is the world as it actually is. The US military was controlling 100% of the narratives reaching the West from Japan for years after the end of WW2. Anyone trying to refute those narratives would have been completely ignored and if they kept on, "dealt with". There ARE people who have tried to refute these narratives but they are always ignored and relegated to the CIA catch all of " conspiracy theorist". I 100% disbelieve any narratives the US military ever push on the face of it. They aren't to be trusted.
1. This is correct -- a fission bomb would release less radioactivity than a reactor meltdown. But the fallout on the ground in both cities is still far too little in relation to the alleged bombs. In particular, the large amount of unfissioned uranium-235 from the Hiroshima bomb is nowhere to be found. And that small amount of fallout which IS found in Hiroshima came from nuclear reactors, not fission bombs. This is evident from the occurrence of plutonium -- yes, there is plutonium in the Hiroshima fallout, and what is more not only Pu-239 but also a high proportion of Pu-240. The latter simply cannot be squared with the story of the bomb detonation.
2. There is no evidence of a uniform strong shock wave -- in fact, the available evidence clearly disproves it. The eyewitness testimony is best explained by multiple local air bursts. The flash of light may have been blinding, but only transiently so -- a proper nuclear flash should have been permanently blinding.
3. The US bombing survey estimated, to reproduce the observed extent of destruction using conventional means, 220 planes would have been needed at Hiroshima, and 125 planes at Nagasaki. There are witness reports of multiple planes. Once the big mushroom clouds had been created early on in the attack using assorted fireworks, these would have served as smoke screens for other planes.
4. The video explains that the distribution in time and space of "radiation sickness", as well as some of its peculiar symptoms in the H/N victims, points to mustard gas rather than radiation. Mustard also causes cancer and leukemia.
5. Sorry, you have to be more specific. What factual claims in whose testimony do you claim to disprove which aspect of my hypothesis?
1. 4,000-degree air can can lift and carry a lot of radioactive debris. Very little of it may have settled on the blast site; prevailing winds moved the cloud away from the city. We should also check the timing and source of your measurement; there may be others with different results.
2. There is massive evidence of a huge shock wave; see the personal testimonies in section 5, below. One of the main exhibits in the Hiroshima Peace Museum is a map which shows a central red area -- destroyed by blast and fire -- and a surrounding yellow area, where the blast damaged buildings, but without fire. All the survivors below (except one, at 1.8 km) were more than 2 km from the hypocenter, where most of the fire destruction ended.
Only those looking directly at the fireball (2,000 ft. up) during the first few seconds of detonation would be permanently blinded, and it takes that long just to recognize something unusual going on; few would keep staring. Testimonies describe many blind people, but most died within hours or days.
3. Please share the witness reports of multiple planes; this explanation seems very weak.
4. Physicians have treated the radiation victims as such for nearly 80 years, with none of them (unless you can show otherwise) recognizing symptoms of gas poisoning. No physical evidence (ordnance) of a gas attack has ever been found, as far as I know. Mustard gas was not used anywhere in WWII; is it reasonable to think old shells or new bombs (if any existed) were shipped overseas for this kind of effort? Not likely...
5. Testimonies:
"...could see a beautiful plane coming towards Mt. Futaba, behind Ome station."
"...and the next moment I looked, pi-kaaa... (huge flash)"
"...mother came out with glass shards all over her body..."
-- Okada Emiko
"Suddenly, a bluish white light flashed like an electric welding spark... The world went white." < Napalm never casts blue-white light >
"...houses levitated a little and then crushed down to the ground like domino pieces. It was just like a white wave head coming toward me while standing on the beach. This was later called blast shock wave."
-- Terao Takeharu, "A Personal Record of A-bamb Survival
"Well, the school was completely destroyed, but it wasn't burned down."
-- Kirioke Chieko
"I looked at the house. The house was already slanted and flattened, and the roof and windows were all blown away.
-- Takeoka Chisako
"...and all the houses collapsed all at once..."
"I... was thrown six meters behind the entrance."
-- Yahata Teruko
"...the entire sky flashed..."
"...was blown away by the blast and got a serious head injury."
-- (elderly news interviewee, recounting her experience)
"...all the skin that came out of my clothes < was exposed > had been burned." < Apparently not the covered parts. >
-- Lee Jeongun
Napalm does none of these things.
All these testimonies are consistent with an air-burst nuclear warhead. There are:
No references to multiple airplanes
No references to fire bombs
No references to sticky, burning oil/napalm
No references to incendiary canisters that remain after a firebombing attack
No references to gas canisters or similar ordnance
Few, if any references to noxious gas, although nearly everyone describes atrocious smells
For those wishing to argue government suppression; it's been almost 80 years, with no contrary testimony appearing; including lots of opportunities for deathbed confessions.
1. The question is not whether it can lift a lot of debris, but whether it will lift virtually ALL of it. But aside from the improbably low absolute amount of fallout, we also have its isotopic composition, which neither in Hiroshima nor in Nagasaki agrees with the official story. This is all documented in detail in the book, and I will not go into more detail here.
2. There is massive evidence of LOCAL shock waves. One Japanese explosives engineer experienced "the bomb" at 13 km out from the alleged hypocenter. Inspecting the damage, he muses: "why did the blast come from a direction at right angles to the flash?"
"Only those looking directly at the fireball (2,000 ft. up) during the first few seconds of detonation would be permanently blinded" -- indeed. But there are many witnesses who report having looked straight at the flash, yet not a single case report of retinal burns.
3. This is indeed a weak point. The best bit of testimony is one I did not keep tabs of, unfortunately, because at the time I was focused on gathering the "hard" evidence. If I remember correctly, it was on the BBC website. A woman in Nagasaki who was at the time working with the air defence in Nagasaki saw multiple planes approaching and tried to get her superiors to raise an air alarm, but failed at that. This points to collusion of the Japanese authorities.
Another bit is this, from "The Rising Sun" by John Toland, who relates the impressions of a witness from Hiroshima: "In her confusion she had the illusion that vast numbers of planes were roaring over the city, dropping bomb after bomb without cessation."
4. It's all in the book. Mustard gas WAS used by the Japanese themselves in China. The Japanese sure would have recognized the signs of its use. This is another argument that points to Japanese collusion.
5. None of these statements prove anything re. conventional or nuclear bombings.
Look. The key point of the book is the medical and physical evidence. This factual evidence alone, is enough to clearly prove that no atomic bombs were detonated, and that mustard gas, napalm, and reactor waste were used to fake the nukes.
Based on that conclusion, I then propose
a) a hypothetical scenario as to how the bombings were faked,
b) a hypothetical motive for the entire thing.
The scenario and the motive are necessarily more speculative, and I am all for people trying to poke holes into them and trying to improve on them. But doing so will not suffice to resurrect the official story. For that, you actually have to address the physical and the medical evidence. You have not provided any substantial arguments that would do so.
Regardless of the source, there were obviously huge fires involved, and many people were horribly burned. Any use of mustard gas would be completely superfluous and pointless. It's an absurd proposition on the face of it. (Why didn't they do the same thing to Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and other cities?)
You have not offered proof -- only evidence, as I have. It is up to readers to assess what is presented (gathering more info themselves, if they wish), and then formulate their own conclusions, based (we hope) on sound logic and a preponderance of evidence.
One closing point, though, for good measure: It seems reasonably certain that aerial photos of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki mushroom clouds are real, not faked. (There was no Photoshop in 1945, and fraudulent photos like Stalin's were easy to detect and discredit.)
I've never seen comparable pictures from the dozens of Japanese cities that were simply firebombed. Is that because conventional fires do not create the massive concentrated temperatures produced by an atomic explosion?https://allthatsinteresting.com/firebombing-of-tokyo#7
From this and other comments of yours, it seems that not only did you not read the book, but you even did not watch the video at the top of this page. Having arrived at this conclusion, I consider it pointless to continue this discussion.
I did watch the video, but see no reason to read the book if the points I have raised above are not addressed. Your scenario remains implausible if it cannot convincingly explain mushroom clouds, miles of damaged buildings surrouding the fire zones, and the distinct absence of hundreds of these things:
Regarding the claim that retinal burns were not observed, please watch the testimony starting at 49:00 of this documentary film. He states "The retina burn had a hole in the left eye."
Firstly, both of his eyes should have been affected, not just one. But let's assume he squinted, and on of his eyes was fully closed. Then, the retinal scar should have left a scotoma -- a blind spot. If he looked at the sun at the appropriate angle, or at anything else for that matter, he should simply see nothing at all. The "arrow through his brain" he claims to experience is not explained by such a scar.
In my book, I discuss a few more anecdotes that suggest that some retinal burns had occurred. I contrast this with the actual medical literature, which contains not a single such case.
It really is impossible for me to take you seriously -- you simply don't know what you are talking about.
I don't claim to be a medical expert, but it requires no medical training at all to identify assumptions that are uninformed or erroneous. You describe a "Normal" situation, but know nothing of this man's background or physical situation. What if the blast occurred to one side or the other, not in front of him? What if there was an obstruction, blocking part of his view? What if he is near-sighted or has astigmatism in one eye, and the image does not focus? Do retinal burns always have identical effects, or do they vary, based on severity and location? I submit that many of your assumptions are uninformed and/or incorrect, and that without direct physical evidence and personal testimony of alternative ordnance being used, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence still points to atomic bombs being deployed in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It is OK to not be a medical expert, but it is not OK to fail at basic reasoning. You adduced this case as evidence of an atomic flash. I pointed out that it fails at that -- it does not show the signs one should expect of a typical retinal burn, and its description as "a whole in the eye" by the alleged victim that causes piercing headache when exposed to light sounds like fiction.
This does not oblige me to prove that THIS ONE CASE is sufficient evidence AGAINST an atomic flash. Such evidence, however, is found in the circumstance that the medical literature contains NOT A SINGLE CASE REPORT OF RETINAL BURNS ON PEOPLE DEAD OR ALIVE after the supposed atomic flashes. You have chosen to ignore this startling fact, as well as a whole raft of others. You shut your eyes and ears, and you keep repeating your mantra of "overwhelming evidence."
You seem to be invested somehow in the official story. As Mark Twain put it, "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
I'm invested only in reality, not particular stories. The story you tell, though interesting, has huge and irreconcilable gaps in it. Some of the irregularities you cite may be valid, but it is a more reasonable goal to find explanations for those irregularities than to refute well supported reports of a heavily documented event that is internally consistent and shared by both the Japanese AND their opponents.
Readers will need to decide for themselves whether an absence of retinal burns is more concerning, or an absence of napalm. Maybe the flippant will win the day. :-)
Is it really more logical? The presentation does raise questions, however it fails to explain so many things.
1. First of all, to address your concern, a small nuclear (fission) warhead does not make a place uninhabitable for long. A nuclear power accident can disburse MUCH more material, and create worse contamination than an air-burst warhead that largely blows away in the wind. (The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were detonated 2,000 ft in the air.)
2. Napalm and mustard gas do not create a strong uniform shock wave, yet windows over 2 km from hypocenter were blown out and many buildings damaged (not due to fire). The witness in the testimony below (and dozens, if not hundreds of others) reported ONE huge explosion that lifted her off the ground -- shortly after ONE blinding flash of light.
3. A VERY large formation of aircraft would be needed to destroy most of a city with napalm and mustard gas. (All?) Hiroshima witnesses report a clear day, with only ONE aircraft, and NO air-raid siren or alert -- which would be understandable for only a single plane.
4. The reports of radiation sickness are too numerous to be dismissed, as is the large number of cancer deaths, for decades following the events. "Bleeding from the gums" weeks after exposure (as reported below) does not sound typical of mustard gas.
5. There are multitudes of personal hibakusha (bomb survivor) testimonies; I have even reviewed/edited the translations of some of them for an anthology. Please read a few and see if you think the information is more consistent with napalm or an atomic bomb. The Hiroshima Peace Museum has also recorded many video testimonies, which are posted on YouTube. Here is one that I just finished watching; tell us where you think she is mistaken:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnvt9U_vBi0
Yes, and I have spoken to Hiroshima eye witnesses too, back in the mid 1970's. Everyone spoke of a single plane and a cloudless sky. I think the fake story is a bit far-fetched, and serves little purpose anyway. These events happened a very long time ago.
I can address some of this going from my own research regarding how everything is done now with the multitude of staged, fake shooting events and other goings on. These people are the masters of all official narratives and they pay armies of collaborators to create false testimonies to back it all up. In the case of what goes on now many of these "victims" and "witnesses" turn out to all be from certain families when you do the actual genealogy and often even fairly closely related to one another. That is the world as it actually is. The US military was controlling 100% of the narratives reaching the West from Japan for years after the end of WW2. Anyone trying to refute those narratives would have been completely ignored and if they kept on, "dealt with". There ARE people who have tried to refute these narratives but they are always ignored and relegated to the CIA catch all of " conspiracy theorist". I 100% disbelieve any narratives the US military ever push on the face of it. They aren't to be trusted.
1. This is correct -- a fission bomb would release less radioactivity than a reactor meltdown. But the fallout on the ground in both cities is still far too little in relation to the alleged bombs. In particular, the large amount of unfissioned uranium-235 from the Hiroshima bomb is nowhere to be found. And that small amount of fallout which IS found in Hiroshima came from nuclear reactors, not fission bombs. This is evident from the occurrence of plutonium -- yes, there is plutonium in the Hiroshima fallout, and what is more not only Pu-239 but also a high proportion of Pu-240. The latter simply cannot be squared with the story of the bomb detonation.
2. There is no evidence of a uniform strong shock wave -- in fact, the available evidence clearly disproves it. The eyewitness testimony is best explained by multiple local air bursts. The flash of light may have been blinding, but only transiently so -- a proper nuclear flash should have been permanently blinding.
3. The US bombing survey estimated, to reproduce the observed extent of destruction using conventional means, 220 planes would have been needed at Hiroshima, and 125 planes at Nagasaki. There are witness reports of multiple planes. Once the big mushroom clouds had been created early on in the attack using assorted fireworks, these would have served as smoke screens for other planes.
4. The video explains that the distribution in time and space of "radiation sickness", as well as some of its peculiar symptoms in the H/N victims, points to mustard gas rather than radiation. Mustard also causes cancer and leukemia.
5. Sorry, you have to be more specific. What factual claims in whose testimony do you claim to disprove which aspect of my hypothesis?
1. 4,000-degree air can can lift and carry a lot of radioactive debris. Very little of it may have settled on the blast site; prevailing winds moved the cloud away from the city. We should also check the timing and source of your measurement; there may be others with different results.
2. There is massive evidence of a huge shock wave; see the personal testimonies in section 5, below. One of the main exhibits in the Hiroshima Peace Museum is a map which shows a central red area -- destroyed by blast and fire -- and a surrounding yellow area, where the blast damaged buildings, but without fire. All the survivors below (except one, at 1.8 km) were more than 2 km from the hypocenter, where most of the fire destruction ended.
Only those looking directly at the fireball (2,000 ft. up) during the first few seconds of detonation would be permanently blinded, and it takes that long just to recognize something unusual going on; few would keep staring. Testimonies describe many blind people, but most died within hours or days.
3. Please share the witness reports of multiple planes; this explanation seems very weak.
4. Physicians have treated the radiation victims as such for nearly 80 years, with none of them (unless you can show otherwise) recognizing symptoms of gas poisoning. No physical evidence (ordnance) of a gas attack has ever been found, as far as I know. Mustard gas was not used anywhere in WWII; is it reasonable to think old shells or new bombs (if any existed) were shipped overseas for this kind of effort? Not likely...
5. Testimonies:
"...could see a beautiful plane coming towards Mt. Futaba, behind Ome station."
"...and the next moment I looked, pi-kaaa... (huge flash)"
"...mother came out with glass shards all over her body..."
-- Okada Emiko
"Suddenly, a bluish white light flashed like an electric welding spark... The world went white." < Napalm never casts blue-white light >
"...houses levitated a little and then crushed down to the ground like domino pieces. It was just like a white wave head coming toward me while standing on the beach. This was later called blast shock wave."
-- Terao Takeharu, "A Personal Record of A-bamb Survival
https://terao-memoir.jp/a-bomb1.html
"Well, the school was completely destroyed, but it wasn't burned down."
-- Kirioke Chieko
"I looked at the house. The house was already slanted and flattened, and the roof and windows were all blown away.
-- Takeoka Chisako
"...and all the houses collapsed all at once..."
"I... was thrown six meters behind the entrance."
-- Yahata Teruko
"...the entire sky flashed..."
"...was blown away by the blast and got a serious head injury."
-- (elderly news interviewee, recounting her experience)
"...all the skin that came out of my clothes < was exposed > had been burned." < Apparently not the covered parts. >
-- Lee Jeongun
Napalm does none of these things.
All these testimonies are consistent with an air-burst nuclear warhead. There are:
No references to multiple airplanes
No references to fire bombs
No references to sticky, burning oil/napalm
No references to incendiary canisters that remain after a firebombing attack
No references to gas canisters or similar ordnance
Few, if any references to noxious gas, although nearly everyone describes atrocious smells
For those wishing to argue government suppression; it's been almost 80 years, with no contrary testimony appearing; including lots of opportunities for deathbed confessions.
1. The question is not whether it can lift a lot of debris, but whether it will lift virtually ALL of it. But aside from the improbably low absolute amount of fallout, we also have its isotopic composition, which neither in Hiroshima nor in Nagasaki agrees with the official story. This is all documented in detail in the book, and I will not go into more detail here.
2. There is massive evidence of LOCAL shock waves. One Japanese explosives engineer experienced "the bomb" at 13 km out from the alleged hypocenter. Inspecting the damage, he muses: "why did the blast come from a direction at right angles to the flash?"
"Only those looking directly at the fireball (2,000 ft. up) during the first few seconds of detonation would be permanently blinded" -- indeed. But there are many witnesses who report having looked straight at the flash, yet not a single case report of retinal burns.
3. This is indeed a weak point. The best bit of testimony is one I did not keep tabs of, unfortunately, because at the time I was focused on gathering the "hard" evidence. If I remember correctly, it was on the BBC website. A woman in Nagasaki who was at the time working with the air defence in Nagasaki saw multiple planes approaching and tried to get her superiors to raise an air alarm, but failed at that. This points to collusion of the Japanese authorities.
Another bit is this, from "The Rising Sun" by John Toland, who relates the impressions of a witness from Hiroshima: "In her confusion she had the illusion that vast numbers of planes were roaring over the city, dropping bomb after bomb without cessation."
4. It's all in the book. Mustard gas WAS used by the Japanese themselves in China. The Japanese sure would have recognized the signs of its use. This is another argument that points to Japanese collusion.
5. None of these statements prove anything re. conventional or nuclear bombings.
Look. The key point of the book is the medical and physical evidence. This factual evidence alone, is enough to clearly prove that no atomic bombs were detonated, and that mustard gas, napalm, and reactor waste were used to fake the nukes.
Based on that conclusion, I then propose
a) a hypothetical scenario as to how the bombings were faked,
b) a hypothetical motive for the entire thing.
The scenario and the motive are necessarily more speculative, and I am all for people trying to poke holes into them and trying to improve on them. But doing so will not suffice to resurrect the official story. For that, you actually have to address the physical and the medical evidence. You have not provided any substantial arguments that would do so.
Regardless of the source, there were obviously huge fires involved, and many people were horribly burned. Any use of mustard gas would be completely superfluous and pointless. It's an absurd proposition on the face of it. (Why didn't they do the same thing to Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and other cities?)
You have not offered proof -- only evidence, as I have. It is up to readers to assess what is presented (gathering more info themselves, if they wish), and then formulate their own conclusions, based (we hope) on sound logic and a preponderance of evidence.
One closing point, though, for good measure: It seems reasonably certain that aerial photos of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki mushroom clouds are real, not faked. (There was no Photoshop in 1945, and fraudulent photos like Stalin's were easy to detect and discredit.)
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/world-war-ii-atomic-bomb-mushroom-clouds-over-hiroshima-and-news-photo/566461885
I've never seen comparable pictures from the dozens of Japanese cities that were simply firebombed. Is that because conventional fires do not create the massive concentrated temperatures produced by an atomic explosion?https://allthatsinteresting.com/firebombing-of-tokyo#7
From this and other comments of yours, it seems that not only did you not read the book, but you even did not watch the video at the top of this page. Having arrived at this conclusion, I consider it pointless to continue this discussion.
I did watch the video, but see no reason to read the book if the points I have raised above are not addressed. Your scenario remains implausible if it cannot convincingly explain mushroom clouds, miles of damaged buildings surrouding the fire zones, and the distinct absence of hundreds of these things:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/firebombing-of-tokyo#33
Regardless of this disagreement, I am grateful for your work in Covid-related research; it is sorely needed and greatly appreciated.
Regarding the claim that retinal burns were not observed, please watch the testimony starting at 49:00 of this documentary film. He states "The retina burn had a hole in the left eye."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5W0My_vO_s
It would be a good idea for everyone to watch the entire film, as well. (1 hour)
Thank you for pointing out this bit of nonsense.
Firstly, both of his eyes should have been affected, not just one. But let's assume he squinted, and on of his eyes was fully closed. Then, the retinal scar should have left a scotoma -- a blind spot. If he looked at the sun at the appropriate angle, or at anything else for that matter, he should simply see nothing at all. The "arrow through his brain" he claims to experience is not explained by such a scar.
In my book, I discuss a few more anecdotes that suggest that some retinal burns had occurred. I contrast this with the actual medical literature, which contains not a single such case.
It really is impossible for me to take you seriously -- you simply don't know what you are talking about.
I don't claim to be a medical expert, but it requires no medical training at all to identify assumptions that are uninformed or erroneous. You describe a "Normal" situation, but know nothing of this man's background or physical situation. What if the blast occurred to one side or the other, not in front of him? What if there was an obstruction, blocking part of his view? What if he is near-sighted or has astigmatism in one eye, and the image does not focus? Do retinal burns always have identical effects, or do they vary, based on severity and location? I submit that many of your assumptions are uninformed and/or incorrect, and that without direct physical evidence and personal testimony of alternative ordnance being used, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence still points to atomic bombs being deployed in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It is OK to not be a medical expert, but it is not OK to fail at basic reasoning. You adduced this case as evidence of an atomic flash. I pointed out that it fails at that -- it does not show the signs one should expect of a typical retinal burn, and its description as "a whole in the eye" by the alleged victim that causes piercing headache when exposed to light sounds like fiction.
This does not oblige me to prove that THIS ONE CASE is sufficient evidence AGAINST an atomic flash. Such evidence, however, is found in the circumstance that the medical literature contains NOT A SINGLE CASE REPORT OF RETINAL BURNS ON PEOPLE DEAD OR ALIVE after the supposed atomic flashes. You have chosen to ignore this startling fact, as well as a whole raft of others. You shut your eyes and ears, and you keep repeating your mantra of "overwhelming evidence."
You seem to be invested somehow in the official story. As Mark Twain put it, "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
I'm invested only in reality, not particular stories. The story you tell, though interesting, has huge and irreconcilable gaps in it. Some of the irregularities you cite may be valid, but it is a more reasonable goal to find explanations for those irregularities than to refute well supported reports of a heavily documented event that is internally consistent and shared by both the Japanese AND their opponents.
You continue to make vapid, vacant assertions without any recourse to hard fact. You are not a serious person.
Readers will need to decide for themselves whether an absence of retinal burns is more concerning, or an absence of napalm. Maybe the flippant will win the day. :-)
Yes, winning the day seems to be your main concern and ambition.
So we have finally descended to ad hominem attacks... No thanks.
Mustard gas, napalm, or atomic heat?
https://www.atomicarchive.com/media/photographs/human/flash-burns.html