"Anyhow, the new system would be brought in, if not by peaceful cooperation - everybody willingly yielding national sovereignty - then by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war. And everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public peace and people would willingly give up national sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in the New International Political System.
This was stated and very impressive thing to hear then ... "If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two - possibly more - nuclear weapons. As it was put this would be possibly needed to convince people that "We mean business." That was followed by the statement that, "By the time one or two of those went off then everybody - even the most reluctant - would yield."
He said something about "this negotiated peace would be very convincing", as kind of in a framework or in a context that the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between hostile enemies who finally had come to the realization that peace was better than war. In this context discussing war, and war is obsolete, a statement was made that there were some good things about war ... one, you're going to die anyway, and people sometimes in war get a chance to display great courage and heroism and if they die they've died well and if they survive they get recognition. So that in any case, the hardships of war on soldiers are worth it because that's the reward they get out of their warring."
Given I've seen this copy-pasted before, a couple of rebuttals to the Day Tapes:
"everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public peace"
There has been no public outcry for negotiating peace, as the majority of the public are totally oblivious to how close we are to nuclear war.
In-fact, NATO has gone to great lengths to hide the brinkmanship, and if you ask any NAFO shill, they will point blank deny Russia would use any nukes, invoking a bizarre version of MAD that ignores the conventional war ongoing. This undercuts the thrust of the argument because there has been ZERO public 'scaremongering' of nukes; quite the opposite actually.
It also contradicts the objectives of the globalist depopulation agenda. It is much easier to massacre large quantities of people with nukes than to scare them. Scare them into what? They're already passive.
"If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two"
This isn't how nuclear exchanges work, and you know it.
"People hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation"
There has been zero attempts at negotiation. In-fact, if you look over every Ukraine related article, it has been perpetual ratcheting to war.
Essentially this boils down to 'don't believe the warnings of nuclear war because I copy-pasted a dubious source that has no reliability or track record'.
The globalist depopulation agenda metrics, bearing in mind the poison shots, has far more predictive power and has proven consistently reliable.
If that scenario was to occur, I would have expected non-stop, wall-to-wall media coverage about how close we are to nuclear war (if that was the case, I wouldn't have to write this article warning of how close it is). The BBC, CNN etc would be running 'run, the nukes are coming' and 'duck and cover' non-stop. Instead, all I see is Trump trial coverage.
If you recall the Iraq war, we were told non-stop Iraq had WMDs, Iraq has WMDs, intel firms say WMDs, etc etc. Wall-to-wall.
For contrast, the evidence they're trying to hide this nuclear war is overwhelming: the UK rebranded conscription as "national service", there's still articles insisting Russia would never use nukes, they've claimed the Baltimore Bridge strike was an "accident" (despite involving the FBI and the DHS), Russia is claiming the fires at those munitions factories are an "accident", a direct hit on a Russian nuclear early warning system was simply downplayed as triggering "higher preparedness" (they're at war, how can they be at a "higher" preparedness? They're already running drills).
I think being unprepared for being nuked is what the globalists would want to happen so they can generate the maximum number of casualties. Their original plan was to bump us all off with the poison shots, but because so many people are aware, they're obviously resorting to a Plan B. The direct Ukraine war was started 2022 - a couple of years after they rolled the poison shots.
To be fair, it was running against some of the worst movies this decade has seen. Wasn't the other one 'Barbie'?
Oppenheimer is fairly tepid, as far as nuclear scaremongering goes. More about the womanizing man, than the bomb. There's the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" or "Olympus Has Fallen", which would be better examples.
Again, I'm not seeing *any* reporting on nuclear potential in any Western news outlets. Even Russia Today, starkly downplays the game of chicken by suggesting Ukraine were responsible - rather than acknowledging only the West can operate long range weapons.
You're welcome to imagine things. I prefer to base my predictions on evidence and probable outcomes inferred, rather than my imagination. The Daily Beagle's prediction hit-rate should speak volumes how effective inference is.
Globalists are sticking to depopulation plan. Remember, the Georgia Guidestones target was 500,000,000. I'm pretty sure there's still plenty of people left alive.
If nuclear escalation is the goal or at least an option at some later stage wouldn't they overtly discount such scenarios lest they lose all public support? Enthusiasm is fairly low as is.
With some of my favorite rabble rousers in one place, let me add the speculation by another savvy observer (@_Escapekey_):
... and this is what I've been building up to.
NATO declaring war on Russia on July 9, 2024 at their 75th anniversary summit.
This will further lead to QE expansion, more CB control, and the elimination of free speech.
What the quote indicates to me is how outside the box manipulative Power intends to be to achieve their objectives and how regular people (awkward) cannot connect the dots of intention and remain transfixed with their own information that they are able to access and are given.
Nukes are real, simply on account nuclear power is real.
Nuclear power runs on critical mass. If you reject nukes, you also have to reject the existence of nuclear power. And nuclear waste. And Geiger counters. And X-rays (which make use of radioactive emitters). And old-fashioned smoke alarms (which make use of radioactive Americum). Depleted uranium, uranium glass, radiotracers used in medicine etc.
Saying you don't believe in nukes means saying you don't believe in nuclear decay, or nuclear fission, or even perhaps nuclear fusion. And the sun works on nuclear fusion, so... that's a lot of things - and evidence - to reject.
I'm not sure that nuclear power is "all-in" on all of it vs. "It's all fake!" which is a binary and we are most definitely taught to view the world in binary logic.
At the least, I'm not sure that nukes were actually deployed.
"Not sure" does not mean "I'VE TAKEN A STRONG STANCE BECAUSE I MUST BE RIGHT AND WIN"
As to the capabilities of nuclear power, I am merely re-examining all historical evidence under the rubrik of what happened with the things unseen and how truth is mixed in with lies and threats.
This is analogous to Virus/Not a Virus and how there may be truth mixed in with leaps of capability and The Science.
And Cancer research and the Wide Body Area Network Internet of Bodies designs.
Is the tech there? Will it ever be there? Will they "hack" humans?
"I'm not sure that nuclear power is "all-in" on all of it"
There's a difference between saying they're not going to use nukes, and saying nukes don't exist.
The moment you acknowledge critical mass reactions for nuclear power is real, is the same moment you have to admit nuclear bombs are real, because critical mass is what can be used to cause the explosion.
Petrol can cause fuel bombs.
Coal powder can cause coal explosions.
If something has a reactive mass, it has to be able to explode in some capacity. Critical mass behaves similarly.
If people want to argue countries won't use nukes, that's their prerogative, but saying nuclear energy, and thus bombs, isn't real - when there's over 133+ reactors in the US and something like 5+ in the UK, and it is a cornerstone of physics, is like trying to argue against reality itself.
A bizarre and self-discrediting hill for anyone to choose to die on.
Okay, this is indeed a distinction which I shall try to parse, but I gather you have already determined the Truth to your satisfaction.
Mazeltov.
Nukes as advertised are different than Petrol bombs in their scope of damage, and is this (perhaps) mythological overstatement of damage that I referred to above. "NUKES".
World ending devices, the sort by which movies were made and zero sum games were allegedly devised to avoid.
So when I said, I'm not sure that nukes are real, that was indeed imprecise.
This is very similar to those who say that Gain of Function is real and deadly due to the large number of labs practicing the alleged lethal practice of creating "super-antigens" that can wipe out the populace and spread and thus a fear based emergency is permanently installed.
I will try to elaborate, but I have grave reservations as to your willingness to even consider different strategies to sort out what is real due to again using an "IF (blank), ergo then (blank)" framing. (Another binary.)
Saying that a form of energy exists and thus can be deployed to spectacular "success" is a bridge that I would need to study for a very long time, as I suspect that we have been lied to all along the way with mixtures of truth and deception on many threats. Climate change, Peak Oil, running out of water, ozone layers, etc.
Nukes and germs.
If nukes were not deployed, and some of the propaganda test videos from the newreel daze are rather absurd, and are logically incoherent with the fallout of radiation (dudes rummaging through the test sites with no PPE the next day) and that the cities in Japan were able to rebuild rather quickly, simply make me curious.
Now, it is possible that these were staged propaganda reels AND that nukes (above definition) were still employed. It is possible that the Man on the Moon shots were filmed at Lookout Mountain and were utterly fake AND man still did land on the moon.
This is how I try to approach historical events and the logic and epistemology. Always looking for the nuanced potential explanations.
If we have doubts about say, moon landings and so forth (*yes I just brought up another variable) and doubts about planes flying into Pentagons, say (*yes, another) and doubts about whether "Gain of Function" or no, viruses even exist and if so, can traverse the globe and sicken and kill large segments of the population...then it's
As to "hacking" humans, you bring up Neuralink, which is a very limited approach to the "hack".
Sabrina Wallace posits that Neuralink or no, our "ass is in the cloud", meaning that through WBAN electrical signals we are already "hacked" in some ways and can be accessed with wireless technology.
Some say she is nuts. Who knows?
I don't put anything on the table as ridiculous at this point.
If I had to guess what they’re up to, right now, with limited information, it’d be this.
1. The 1945 nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were faked and were destroyed by fire bombings like many other Japanese cities. They added mustard gas to mimic expected harms from radiation.
2. At least some of the postwar nuclear bomb tests were also faked. We don’t know when this stopped happening, or if it ever did.
3. One scenario has them solve whatever it was that prevented atomic bombs in 1945. Another is they’re still fake. Given the extent of lying about everything I dig into, I’m exploring the latter.
4. Knowing they can’t inadvertently destroy their own real estate, the perpetrators are entirely happy to pretend to wind up the risks of a nuclear exchange as a means to introduce martial law and/or massive scale lockdowns.
If we’re told there’s been a limited nuclear exchange in Ukraine and a big cloud of fall out is drifting north west over Europe, I’m off outside for a long walk. The weather will be glorious, since they’ll have grounded the weather modification aeroplanes.
The fact you have to invent crazy - and unevidenced - scenarios of fire with mustard gas, in a book that admits Uranium-235 was detected - only producible via nuclear fission - is hilarious.
Is your sole job as Pfizer hitman to declare every theory as 'fake' to discredit the wider movement?
Viruses are fake, nukes are fake, what isn't fake, Yeadon? Your career? If viruses are fake how do you justify working at that company for so many decades?
"If we’re told there’s been a limited nuclear exchange in Ukraine and a big cloud of fall out is drifting north west over Europe, I’m off outside for a long walk."
Your best rebuttal is a flippant, dismissal response?
Yeah, sounds like what I'd expect an ex-Pfizer employee to do. Deny the truth and any evidence.
Descartes worried about AN evil demon - i.e. one, purposely deceiving him (his fellow humans, he assumed, could generally be relied on as truth seekers). But what if there are 1000s of evil demons persisting across decades intent on deception? Yeadon is justified in his wild speculations calling it, himself, guessing. It's fun for those times when cogito ergo sum gets rather boring. And we all could use a little fun about now.
Appealing to fun just sounds like a fancy way of denialism.
Descartes arguments were that his own thoughts were the only truth, and that everything else wasn't real. He obviously didn't subscribe to this *thought experiment* because he went ahead and published a book on it, and continued to eat and drink.
I.E. the physical evidence overcame the subjective musings. As it always will do when a charlatan attempts to mislead. Anyone who rejects evidence, rejects truth.
It's like watching an elderly relative completely lose their marbles to dementia and madly start swinging their cane (or walker) at everyone. Hopefully, all saner heads will somehow be able to step back out of reach while the berserk crazy relative(s), in the course of time, return to dust.
I am old so this offends me. What I see is a herd with a sense of entitlement greedy for money and power willing to sacrifice others which is presumptuous. If these people are suicidal that is one thing the sacrificing of others is murderous.
I'm also old, so certainly meant no offense by employing this simile/parallel. I agree with your feelings about what is going on, but don't think the offending parties have enough conscious wits to summon or embody presumptuousness --- they are just deteriorating, empty husks of homo sapiens, very dangerous to be around.
Americans had no qualms bombing two civilian population centres within days of each other. They didn't even give Japan a chance to surrender, they just wanted to test their toys.
Arguing the bombings were caused by earlier bombs, and then when caught out, claiming it was photoshopped (even though photoshop didn't exist in the 1940s), whilst trying to argue nuclear power does not exist (???) and also insisting viruses don't exist (? nothing to do with the argument) crosses a line and is blatant discredit-by-association. Why stop there? Why not just argue nothing exists? Your evidence certainly doesn't.
Given the sheer number of astroturf accounts trying to argue nothing exists/nothing is happening on every Daily Beagle article, I'm considering paywalling the comments: if you don't believe the writings, why are you subscribed?
It is blatantly an attempt to undermine the writings using vain, unevidenced repetitions that fall flat as soon as they're challenged.
Day Tapes #2:
"Anyhow, the new system would be brought in, if not by peaceful cooperation - everybody willingly yielding national sovereignty - then by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war. And everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public peace and people would willingly give up national sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in the New International Political System.
This was stated and very impressive thing to hear then ... "If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two - possibly more - nuclear weapons. As it was put this would be possibly needed to convince people that "We mean business." That was followed by the statement that, "By the time one or two of those went off then everybody - even the most reluctant - would yield."
He said something about "this negotiated peace would be very convincing", as kind of in a framework or in a context that the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between hostile enemies who finally had come to the realization that peace was better than war. In this context discussing war, and war is obsolete, a statement was made that there were some good things about war ... one, you're going to die anyway, and people sometimes in war get a chance to display great courage and heroism and if they die they've died well and if they survive they get recognition. So that in any case, the hardships of war on soldiers are worth it because that's the reward they get out of their warring."
Given I've seen this copy-pasted before, a couple of rebuttals to the Day Tapes:
"everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public peace"
There has been no public outcry for negotiating peace, as the majority of the public are totally oblivious to how close we are to nuclear war.
In-fact, NATO has gone to great lengths to hide the brinkmanship, and if you ask any NAFO shill, they will point blank deny Russia would use any nukes, invoking a bizarre version of MAD that ignores the conventional war ongoing. This undercuts the thrust of the argument because there has been ZERO public 'scaremongering' of nukes; quite the opposite actually.
It also contradicts the objectives of the globalist depopulation agenda. It is much easier to massacre large quantities of people with nukes than to scare them. Scare them into what? They're already passive.
"If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two"
This isn't how nuclear exchanges work, and you know it.
"People hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation"
There has been zero attempts at negotiation. In-fact, if you look over every Ukraine related article, it has been perpetual ratcheting to war.
Essentially this boils down to 'don't believe the warnings of nuclear war because I copy-pasted a dubious source that has no reliability or track record'.
The globalist depopulation agenda metrics, bearing in mind the poison shots, has far more predictive power and has proven consistently reliable.
I won't post it any more.
Yes I'm sure that if it is not immediately going down right at this moment, then it's not a template for the general outlines.
Certainly nothing else in the Day Tapes has come to pass.
If that scenario was to occur, I would have expected non-stop, wall-to-wall media coverage about how close we are to nuclear war (if that was the case, I wouldn't have to write this article warning of how close it is). The BBC, CNN etc would be running 'run, the nukes are coming' and 'duck and cover' non-stop. Instead, all I see is Trump trial coverage.
If you recall the Iraq war, we were told non-stop Iraq had WMDs, Iraq has WMDs, intel firms say WMDs, etc etc. Wall-to-wall.
For contrast, the evidence they're trying to hide this nuclear war is overwhelming: the UK rebranded conscription as "national service", there's still articles insisting Russia would never use nukes, they've claimed the Baltimore Bridge strike was an "accident" (despite involving the FBI and the DHS), Russia is claiming the fires at those munitions factories are an "accident", a direct hit on a Russian nuclear early warning system was simply downplayed as triggering "higher preparedness" (they're at war, how can they be at a "higher" preparedness? They're already running drills).
I think being unprepared for being nuked is what the globalists would want to happen so they can generate the maximum number of casualties. Their original plan was to bump us all off with the poison shots, but because so many people are aware, they're obviously resorting to a Plan B. The direct Ukraine war was started 2022 - a couple of years after they rolled the poison shots.
Oppenheimer.
Best Picture, 2023.
Surely this was organic.
Just as "Contagion" emerged like bat to pangolin emerging coronavirus following the Good Club meetings in 2011, courtesy Jeffrey Skoll.
Anyway, who knows? Just posting as a potential Psy Op plan.
Most of the agendas in the Day Tapes came to pass and are still coming to pass including biometric surveillance.
The plan as laid out in 1969 may have been junked for better ones.
Or it all may be a giant scam and we should NOT use our imaginations.
I do want to know what is real.
"Oppenheimer.
Best Picture, 2023."
To be fair, it was running against some of the worst movies this decade has seen. Wasn't the other one 'Barbie'?
Oppenheimer is fairly tepid, as far as nuclear scaremongering goes. More about the womanizing man, than the bomb. There's the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" or "Olympus Has Fallen", which would be better examples.
Again, I'm not seeing *any* reporting on nuclear potential in any Western news outlets. Even Russia Today, starkly downplays the game of chicken by suggesting Ukraine were responsible - rather than acknowledging only the West can operate long range weapons.
You're welcome to imagine things. I prefer to base my predictions on evidence and probable outcomes inferred, rather than my imagination. The Daily Beagle's prediction hit-rate should speak volumes how effective inference is.
Globalists are sticking to depopulation plan. Remember, the Georgia Guidestones target was 500,000,000. I'm pretty sure there's still plenty of people left alive.
Oppenheimer the man was a fraud.
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not by nuclear bombs.
They pretended they had them. But they didn’t.
We don’t know when, if ever, this changed.
https://archive.org/details/Hiroshima_revisited/page/53/mode/1up
If nuclear escalation is the goal or at least an option at some later stage wouldn't they overtly discount such scenarios lest they lose all public support? Enthusiasm is fairly low as is.
With some of my favorite rabble rousers in one place, let me add the speculation by another savvy observer (@_Escapekey_):
... and this is what I've been building up to.
NATO declaring war on Russia on July 9, 2024 at their 75th anniversary summit.
This will further lead to QE expansion, more CB control, and the elimination of free speech.
https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/1795027624634290200
I'm not even sure nukes are real, to be clear.
What the quote indicates to me is how outside the box manipulative Power intends to be to achieve their objectives and how regular people (awkward) cannot connect the dots of intention and remain transfixed with their own information that they are able to access and are given.
Nukes are real, simply on account nuclear power is real.
Nuclear power runs on critical mass. If you reject nukes, you also have to reject the existence of nuclear power. And nuclear waste. And Geiger counters. And X-rays (which make use of radioactive emitters). And old-fashioned smoke alarms (which make use of radioactive Americum). Depleted uranium, uranium glass, radiotracers used in medicine etc.
Saying you don't believe in nukes means saying you don't believe in nuclear decay, or nuclear fission, or even perhaps nuclear fusion. And the sun works on nuclear fusion, so... that's a lot of things - and evidence - to reject.
Good points.
I'm not sure that nuclear power is "all-in" on all of it vs. "It's all fake!" which is a binary and we are most definitely taught to view the world in binary logic.
At the least, I'm not sure that nukes were actually deployed.
"Not sure" does not mean "I'VE TAKEN A STRONG STANCE BECAUSE I MUST BE RIGHT AND WIN"
As to the capabilities of nuclear power, I am merely re-examining all historical evidence under the rubrik of what happened with the things unseen and how truth is mixed in with lies and threats.
This is analogous to Virus/Not a Virus and how there may be truth mixed in with leaps of capability and The Science.
And Cancer research and the Wide Body Area Network Internet of Bodies designs.
Is the tech there? Will it ever be there? Will they "hack" humans?
"I'm not sure that nuclear power is "all-in" on all of it"
There's a difference between saying they're not going to use nukes, and saying nukes don't exist.
The moment you acknowledge critical mass reactions for nuclear power is real, is the same moment you have to admit nuclear bombs are real, because critical mass is what can be used to cause the explosion.
Petrol can cause fuel bombs.
Coal powder can cause coal explosions.
If something has a reactive mass, it has to be able to explode in some capacity. Critical mass behaves similarly.
If people want to argue countries won't use nukes, that's their prerogative, but saying nuclear energy, and thus bombs, isn't real - when there's over 133+ reactors in the US and something like 5+ in the UK, and it is a cornerstone of physics, is like trying to argue against reality itself.
A bizarre and self-discrediting hill for anyone to choose to die on.
"Will they "hack" humans?"
NeuraLink, they already are.
Okay, this is indeed a distinction which I shall try to parse, but I gather you have already determined the Truth to your satisfaction.
Mazeltov.
Nukes as advertised are different than Petrol bombs in their scope of damage, and is this (perhaps) mythological overstatement of damage that I referred to above. "NUKES".
World ending devices, the sort by which movies were made and zero sum games were allegedly devised to avoid.
So when I said, I'm not sure that nukes are real, that was indeed imprecise.
This is very similar to those who say that Gain of Function is real and deadly due to the large number of labs practicing the alleged lethal practice of creating "super-antigens" that can wipe out the populace and spread and thus a fear based emergency is permanently installed.
I will try to elaborate, but I have grave reservations as to your willingness to even consider different strategies to sort out what is real due to again using an "IF (blank), ergo then (blank)" framing. (Another binary.)
Saying that a form of energy exists and thus can be deployed to spectacular "success" is a bridge that I would need to study for a very long time, as I suspect that we have been lied to all along the way with mixtures of truth and deception on many threats. Climate change, Peak Oil, running out of water, ozone layers, etc.
Nukes and germs.
If nukes were not deployed, and some of the propaganda test videos from the newreel daze are rather absurd, and are logically incoherent with the fallout of radiation (dudes rummaging through the test sites with no PPE the next day) and that the cities in Japan were able to rebuild rather quickly, simply make me curious.
Now, it is possible that these were staged propaganda reels AND that nukes (above definition) were still employed. It is possible that the Man on the Moon shots were filmed at Lookout Mountain and were utterly fake AND man still did land on the moon.
This is how I try to approach historical events and the logic and epistemology. Always looking for the nuanced potential explanations.
If we have doubts about say, moon landings and so forth (*yes I just brought up another variable) and doubts about planes flying into Pentagons, say (*yes, another) and doubts about whether "Gain of Function" or no, viruses even exist and if so, can traverse the globe and sicken and kill large segments of the population...then it's
As to "hacking" humans, you bring up Neuralink, which is a very limited approach to the "hack".
Sabrina Wallace posits that Neuralink or no, our "ass is in the cloud", meaning that through WBAN electrical signals we are already "hacked" in some ways and can be accessed with wireless technology.
Some say she is nuts. Who knows?
I don't put anything on the table as ridiculous at this point.
Red flags all over this post. Bad actor type flags.
“Next you’ll be saying the earth is flat” etc
Run out of evidence so you have to try ad hominem tactics?
Poisoning the well fallacies suit you quite well Yeadon.
The existence of nuclear power does not imply that nuclear bombs exist.
https://archive.org/details/Hiroshima_revisited/page/53/mode/1up
If you can rebut this evidence, please do so.
Otherwise, your postings are uninformed and potentially dangerous.
Nuclear power's existence literally means nuclear bombs exist.
Critical mass is what causes the explosion.
Did Chernobyl teach you nothing?
"your postings are uninformed and potentially dangerous."
Projection from a man who helped Pfizer to kill so many people in the intervening decades.
Welcome to the new Hell on Earth. Pax
It's a Shiny Happy Hell and a Hell loaded with Very Smart People who are skilled TV watchers and consumers of information.
What could go wrong???? :-P
✔️
…the crystal ball of the Day Tapes.
https://archive.org/details/Hiroshima_revisited/page/53/mode/1up
If I had to guess what they’re up to, right now, with limited information, it’d be this.
1. The 1945 nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were faked and were destroyed by fire bombings like many other Japanese cities. They added mustard gas to mimic expected harms from radiation.
https://archive.org/details/Hiroshima_revisited/page/53/mode/1up
2. At least some of the postwar nuclear bomb tests were also faked. We don’t know when this stopped happening, or if it ever did.
3. One scenario has them solve whatever it was that prevented atomic bombs in 1945. Another is they’re still fake. Given the extent of lying about everything I dig into, I’m exploring the latter.
4. Knowing they can’t inadvertently destroy their own real estate, the perpetrators are entirely happy to pretend to wind up the risks of a nuclear exchange as a means to introduce martial law and/or massive scale lockdowns.
If we’re told there’s been a limited nuclear exchange in Ukraine and a big cloud of fall out is drifting north west over Europe, I’m off outside for a long walk. The weather will be glorious, since they’ll have grounded the weather modification aeroplanes.
The fact you have to invent crazy - and unevidenced - scenarios of fire with mustard gas, in a book that admits Uranium-235 was detected - only producible via nuclear fission - is hilarious.
Is your sole job as Pfizer hitman to declare every theory as 'fake' to discredit the wider movement?
Viruses are fake, nukes are fake, what isn't fake, Yeadon? Your career? If viruses are fake how do you justify working at that company for so many decades?
"If we’re told there’s been a limited nuclear exchange in Ukraine and a big cloud of fall out is drifting north west over Europe, I’m off outside for a long walk."
Your best rebuttal is a flippant, dismissal response?
Yeah, sounds like what I'd expect an ex-Pfizer employee to do. Deny the truth and any evidence.
Descartes worried about AN evil demon - i.e. one, purposely deceiving him (his fellow humans, he assumed, could generally be relied on as truth seekers). But what if there are 1000s of evil demons persisting across decades intent on deception? Yeadon is justified in his wild speculations calling it, himself, guessing. It's fun for those times when cogito ergo sum gets rather boring. And we all could use a little fun about now.
Appealing to fun just sounds like a fancy way of denialism.
Descartes arguments were that his own thoughts were the only truth, and that everything else wasn't real. He obviously didn't subscribe to this *thought experiment* because he went ahead and published a book on it, and continued to eat and drink.
I.E. the physical evidence overcame the subjective musings. As it always will do when a charlatan attempts to mislead. Anyone who rejects evidence, rejects truth.
Nukes would have to exist for this to happen. Meanwhile, we do have DEWs and other exotic weaponry.
It's like watching an elderly relative completely lose their marbles to dementia and madly start swinging their cane (or walker) at everyone. Hopefully, all saner heads will somehow be able to step back out of reach while the berserk crazy relative(s), in the course of time, return to dust.
I am old so this offends me. What I see is a herd with a sense of entitlement greedy for money and power willing to sacrifice others which is presumptuous. If these people are suicidal that is one thing the sacrificing of others is murderous.
I'm also old, so certainly meant no offense by employing this simile/parallel. I agree with your feelings about what is going on, but don't think the offending parties have enough conscious wits to summon or embody presumptuousness --- they are just deteriorating, empty husks of homo sapiens, very dangerous to be around.
I stand in agreement with this statement.
Anyone who thinks nukes aren't real needs to avail themselves of the post-nuke photographs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
https://www.allworldwars.com/Photographs-of-the-atomic-bombings-of-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki.html
Americans had no qualms bombing two civilian population centres within days of each other. They didn't even give Japan a chance to surrender, they just wanted to test their toys.
That’s bad advice.
Have you viewed pictures of Japanese cities destroyed by firebombing?
Such pictures look IDENTICAL to the post destruction scenes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Do you know what the word "Thermo" in 'thermonuclear' stands for?
Let me guess, all filmed footage is fake, any evidence you disagree with is fake, etc?
Weirdly parallel to most Pfizer shills I encounter...
"the devastation is explained by the fact that these cities had been constantly bombed"
There are before and after photographs taken by the bombers. So no, it wasn't due to prior bombings.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/hiroshima-before-and-after.jpg
"There are at least as many arguments against their existence as for."
No, there isn't, and if you keep spreading mistruths contrary to evidence you will be banned.
Arguing the bombings were caused by earlier bombs, and then when caught out, claiming it was photoshopped (even though photoshop didn't exist in the 1940s), whilst trying to argue nuclear power does not exist (???) and also insisting viruses don't exist (? nothing to do with the argument) crosses a line and is blatant discredit-by-association. Why stop there? Why not just argue nothing exists? Your evidence certainly doesn't.
Given the sheer number of astroturf accounts trying to argue nothing exists/nothing is happening on every Daily Beagle article, I'm considering paywalling the comments: if you don't believe the writings, why are you subscribed?
It is blatantly an attempt to undermine the writings using vain, unevidenced repetitions that fall flat as soon as they're challenged.