If the Nazis had developed a working small atomic shell in June, 1943, had a working production line to produce ‘a few’ of them, and had successfully used them in actual battles against the Russians – why did they not use them ever again?
not against the Allied landings at Normandy?
not against the Allied troops advancing across France?
not against the Russian troops advancing across Poland?
not in the last-chance Battle of the Bulge?
not even against the Russians encircling Berlin, within a few blocks of his bunker?
If they had a working, proven atomic shell in June, 1943, why were they still doing ‘tests’ in October, 1944?
And why ever would they do tests in a location that would cause a 2½ day communications blackout of Berlin, their capitol and command headquarters?
In the Spring of 1945, Hitler threw everything he had (including 14-year-old-boys and seniors in their 70’s) into the front lines to stop the armies advancing from both East & West. But he didn’t use the atomic shells that Germany had perfected? Why not?
I don’t know enough to comment on the critical mass, emission spectrums, etc. But Hitler not using a working weapon just doesn’t make sense to me!
That’d be fine if you had any sources for your ludicrous claims. You don’t. Show me NARA/RG 38, Box 9-13 Entry 98c. Prove to me that it exists; use the Freedom of Information Act if you have to. Show me one site on the internet mentioning it where the person mentioning it isn’t you. I had found a mention of it on a loony book review on Amazon and thought perhaps more than one person believed in it, but based on your photobucket links the reviewer, Kiwi, is in fact you as well.
I’m almost giddy with glee that tazjet has come to share his world with us. For a long time I’m been reading the conspiracy theorists here and trying to catalog their reasoning processes. But the purity of the moon hoaxers and 9/11 truthers is somewhat tainted because their information and presentation is so heavily borrowed from one another. The composite moves to a discrete total argument, but an independent source is always the most valuable new piece of data.
And now this. The Nazis exploded an atomic bomb. It’s like finding a lost tribe in the Amazon, uncontaminated by western contact. And the alignment is so perfect it’s as if tazjet were making it up for my benefit.
The confluence needs a paper to get it all straight, so here’s the shorthand version. A CT has two main parts: ignoring all the huge issues about common sense and lack of evidence that are unanswerable to concentrate on tiny matters of special expertise that only a few people would be able to refute. The argument is then made by assuming the answer and working backward. Instead of starting with a cause and determining what effects it would have and then looking for them, the desired answer is proved by taking any random event and declaring its existence as proof that the cause happened as given.
For moon hoaxers, the insurmountable problems are the lack of anyone admitting to taking part in the hoax, the lack of any evidence showing how the hoax was staged, and any explanation for why our country’s enemy, the USSR, with the scientific expertise to track every minute of the mission and a spy ring that was stealing secrets from us, failed to make use of this information in a giant propaganda coup.
Instead, the argument turns on pixels and lens lengths, whether they are relevant or proven wrong.
The 9/11 Truthers have similar difficulties. If the destruction was an inside job then how has it remained a total secret? How did we get our enemies to take credit for it? Why use planes if missiles or explosives were the real weapons? Why wasn’t Washington rigged with explosions in the same way?
Instead, arguments are made from declaring twisted pieces of metal to not have melted in the right way.
The Nazi atomic bomb argument must therefore also ignore all questions about how it could remain completely unknown. If the heavy water plant in Norway was discovered and destroyed during the war, then why was not a single trace or mention of any succeeding plants ever found, even after the war? Many failed Nazi weapon attempts have been revealed in great detail, so how has this remained a secret? Why have no enemies of Germany ever used it to their advantage?
Instead, we get arguments about ionization colors.
And backward reasoning reigns. The normal scientific procedure would be to look at the composition, size, yield, height of explosion and other factors and determine what effects they would have and then search for traces of those effects. For an EMP, a scientist would try to determine its size, its area of coverage, and its characteristics and then see what evidence exists in those parameters, including what contemporary explanation that engineers gave for the event. Finding a blackout 200 miles away and using it as proof of the bomb is instantly disqualifying to a standard argument.
This is the barest skeleton of a thorough dissection. You can also look at the kinds of documentation that are used as proof, the believability of the sources cited, and the range of expertise across numerous scientific fields that must be claimed. There is also the inevitable growing rage at the disbelief and the refutations and what is seen as personal insults with the inevitable lashing back to the point of possible banning.
The parallels here are uncanny. We have a yeti in the wild. I am the proud possessor of a genuine fake bigfoot footprint* - one of the ones made by the famous hoaxer who later confessed. It’s the perfect reminder of backward thinking.
My scientific prediction is that this thread will unwind exactly as all the other CT threads have. Put on your lab coats and proceed.
*Yes, bought knowingly as a hoax.
I don’t think that the Germans would have tested their first bomb by dropping it on foreign territory.
The idea of testing it is to see if it works, if you drop it on London and it fails to detonate then you’ve handed the allies a gift of the latest technology that you’re working on.
Personally I think that the best idea from their point of view would be to detonate it on German held Russian territory close to the frontline near a large build up of Russian forces.
If it works it might cause some difficulties for the enemy, plus scare the crap out of them, if it doesn’t then you can either fix the problem or retrieve the bomb.
THEN you drop it on London.
As was pointed out a couple of years ago in this thread, that can really go either way. It’s true that the U.S. tested its first atomic bomb (a plutonium implosion weapon) at the Trinity test in New Mexico. However, the uranium gun-type bomb was a completely different design from the plutonium implosion bomb (using both a different isotope and a different method of achieving a critical mass for the chain reaction), and the U.S. “tested” the uranium gun-type bomb by dropping it on Hiroshima.
Yes, it’s so nice to hear the distant call of the cuckoo without the jarring screech of “long form birth certificate” or “Kenyan” to mar the stillness of the woods.
Don’t celbebrate too soon. The only other person I’ve encountered pushing the Nazi A-Bomb story seriously was also a 9/11 truther and holocaust denier.
You seem to have a hang up with other issues which are not being discussed here.
Since you are too much a coward to accuse me directly but wish to slander with innuendo, I am not a holocaust denier… That is you personal drama.
Nor have I any reason to doubt two aircraft slammed into the Twin Towers. I was an airline employee at the time and vividly recall watching it live on a TV set at the airport where I was working.
Cuckoo are people who ignore evidence and cling to a myth and find every excuse to deny new evidence emerging from previously concealed information… That is my definition of psychosis.
You use the research of a notorius holocaust denier and seem very hung up on proving Nazi techincal supriority in a particular field (both here & in the V2 thread), which I have seen used on other boards to support the notion that the holocaust didn’t occur.
It goes like this:
[ul]
[li]Nazi’s had the bomb but didn’t use it.[/li][li]US had the bomb & did use it.[/li][li]Therefore the Nazi regime was morally superior to the US Govt.[/li][li]Therefore the holocaust didn’t/could’t have happend[/li][/ul]
So don’t get pissy if people draw conclusions based on their experience.
As for the rest, crank magnetism is a pretty well known concept, so again, don’t be suprised when it gets brought up. Especially when a quick search finds a lot of your references showing up on places like Above Top Secret and other conspiracy sites.
Are you under some kind of impression a nuclear shockwave would be considered “low pressure?”
Ah, the sound of goalposts moving! Suddenly it’s blue, violet, or red, as needed, as long as that “proves” it was nuclear! Did you know it was three colors all along? If so, why did you emphasize “blue?”
Citation required. Do you have any verifiable source for this?
You still have not addressed how the small amount of helium generated as a reaction byproduct would be able to significantly affect the color of the entire nuclear fireball. In a nuclear explosion the vast majority of the mass of the fireball will be made up of air and other material surrounding the device. The vaporized remains of the device itself will be a parts-per-million contaminant of the fireball.
Furthermore, ionized nitrogen does glow blue, under fairly ordinary atmospheric conditions. It’s responsible for the blue-white appearance of lightning. If you were to see a fireball glowing blue, how would you determine by the naked eye that it was anything other than ionized nitrogen?
The source, Zinsser, did not say anything about any elements at all. He said he saw blue flashes. It’s only by working backward from the premise that an atomic bomb existed does anyone search the entire physical world for a source of blue flashes that has some, any, connection to an atomic blast. Once such a thing - helium - is found, then all other possibilities are immediately negated. It must have been helium because it must have been an atomic blast. Alternative sources of blue flashes are no longer possible. Only proofs of the initial premise can be allowed. It’s completely circular.
Don’t know about giddy Exapno Mapcase but you sure make me dizzy with all your hyperbole.
I am a little concerned for you because you sound slightly paranoid in your claims about me as if I am some omnipresent hoaxer. Your post is a classic example of starting with a premise and building an argument to fit it.
You have no real idea who I am or anything about me even if you can guess my name, because you have no insight into my life, my beliefs or motivations.
Not only have you constructed an elaborate myth about me from thin air, but regurgitated your theory as if it were proven fact.
Your shorthand answer skips about a thousand intervening points and draws its’ own conclusions based on its’ own assumptions. In fact you start with an entirely wrong assumption why I come to believe in this.
The Straight Dope:
An American guy called Ed White will actually tell you that prior to 2009 he and I had long arguments in which I refuted his belief that the Nazis developed an atomic bomb.
I was arguing that they could not possibly have obtained Plutonium in the time available, until one day he said something to me that made perfect sense. When I investigated his comment it forced me to reconsider all my other objections to his viewpoint. As I did so, it inverted all my arguments against him and convinced me he had been right all along, so no, you are wrong when you say
“The argument is then made by assuming the answer…”
That is nothing like how I arrived at my beliefs today.
I believe in the Nazi Atomic bomb because somebody else had the guts to beat down all my objections. Thank you Ed White.
I considered the points he made and next I compared the book by Rainer Karlsch with facts which could be ascertained, or corroborated. So no, I did not start with an assumption and work back from it. I began my belief in this subject by first being in denial and opposing the very idea.
When I went back over all my old assumptions and challenged them against verifiable facts I discovered one by one that the sources all pointed in one direction that in fact there was a Nazi Atomic weapon and that there were archived references both German and Allied to such a weapon being tested.
I suggest you read through the Cordell Hull papers for telegrams from the OSS station chief in Switzerland reporting a series of three underground nuclear tests in the Schwabian Alps in July 1943 (all corroborated by seismic records). It is all there in previously classified OSS reports. The Zinsser affidavit merely provides post war confirmation about what the OSS was reporting to Washington about German nuclear weapons from 1943 to 1945.
Indeed you can only sustain an argument that the Nazis had no nuclear weapon by sustained denial of declassified Allied Intelligence reports in various Government archives, which is what all of you are doing.
The undeniable fact that the Allies used nuclear weapons in Japan and won the War is not itself proof that the Nazis had no nuclear weapons.
So no, it isn’t like a lost tribe in the Amazon…
The alignment is so perfect simply because it is the truth… and that grates with your belief because you have been bottle fed from infancy on a myth of American supremacy in WW2 and can’t reconcile opposing claims except by hostility to a new explanation.
No hoax… I refer to Allied intelligence files which were kept classified after the war. I refer to period documents from the OSS, US Naval Intelligence, ULTRA decrypts of wartime encrypted signals, German archives and personal archived papers from the estates of former Nazi nuclear scientists, including wartime Nazi patents in 1942 for a nuclear weapon initiated by Li6 + Deuterium plasma pinches (Dueteron beams).
For it to be a hoax I would somehow have had to plant all these unrelated documents in various government archives… Sorry but your shorthand theory is more than a touch of paranoia and makes no logic except to those who share distorted views or denial.
It is simplistic to resolve the debate by saying one side is totally right and the other argument is totally wrong.
No I never said Zinsser did. I said he described coloured flashes in the mushroom cloud with characteristics of of the lower 19 elements. I said…
The blue flashes are characteristic of ionised gases from the lower 19 elements at low pressure.
The patents issued by Schumann & Trinks describe various component chemical compounds which include Lithium Deuteride, Lithium hydride and Beryllium oxide. The explosive compression of Lithium-6 and Deuterium (in a deuteride coating around uranium) creates a fusion reaction called a deuteron beam resulting in Helium.
Nazi scientists discovered Fusion by accident in an electric arc furnace in October 1936 and began experimenting with it for thermonuclear weapon applications from 1939. A Japanses scientist named Hasegawa proposed thermonuclear weapons as early as 1938.
Of course I am the person with the photobucket account. I live in New Zealand and Kiwi is our national bird. It’s also a nickname for a person from this country. Man you must have it bad when you see conspiracy at every turn?
I posted images there so I could link illustrations to my posts on these threads… No big deal, no huge conspiracy either, but if you think I am omnipresent and responsible for every claim about Nazi atomic weapons then you are mistaken.
I am not an author. Please share with us which looney book review you refer to?
It may not occur to you but only US citizens have access to the Freedom of Information Act so if you wish why don’t you make a FOIA request?
There was a suggestion made somewhere by someone that I must be the person behind Reich of the Black Sun or some title like that…That person is Joseph Farrell. He and I can’t stand each other. In fact I understand Farrell does not subscribe to any belief in Nazi development of the Atomic bomb.
Are you suggesting I made up this claim about the Zinsser affidavit which is part of a report “Investigations, Research, Developments and Practical Use of the German Atomic Bomb,” issued by COMNAVEU London on 25 January 1946 by Captain R.F. Hickey, USN?
Well that’s a mighty big claim you make…I bet you wont have the humility to apologise when your absurd slur is taken down.
Any sources for my claim?
Yeah sure, plenty try these:
"Luftwaffe over America, The Secret Plans to Bomb the United States in World War II,” 2005 by Manfred Griehl. Pub Greenhill Books (Zinsser claim chapter 13)
“Rise of the Fourth Reich,” 2008, by Marrs, Jim, pub Harper Collins, Zinsser claim page 61-62
“Hilter’s Bomb” 2005, Karlsh, Rainer, pub Springer Verlag (does not cite the Hickey file but does cite alternate evidence of the Rugen atomic blast like Luigi Romersa)
Yes you are quite right I am prolific on the internet making such claims, but I am not the only one. I am just one person who believes passionately in it. My father fought at Normandy on D-Day and his generation deserve better than the B/S lies about WW2 which they were sent to their graves with. Lies in fact which also conceal the involvement of corporate America in support for the Nazis throughout WW2.
Who else posts about the Nazi A-bomb?
Ed White is another person off the top of my head. Also a neo Nazi white supremacist nicknamed Skogkille is another. I am neither of these people. On a forum about German military history is a third individual named Ohrdruf who also writes about such things. The person behind greyfalcon website is a lawyer in Montreal named Franz which is also not me.
Each of these are diverse people with diverse values and beliefs.
