Bikini Atoll nuclear tests were all faked

We are told the locals can’t live there now because of radioactivity, but we see at least three proofs against that. One, we see lots of plant life both on and offshore. Radioactivity affects plants just as it affects animals, so the island should be barren. Remember, the Bikini Atoll wasn’t said to be blasted by only Able and Baker. It was blasted 23 times, including three of the biggest blasts ever from US testing: the 4.5 megaton Navajo and the 5 megaton Tewa, in 1956; and the 15 megaton Bravo in 1954. Bravo was therefore 750 times more powerful than Baker. Multiply the Baker mushroom by 750 times. Since the average elevation of Bikini is only 7 feet above low tide, a blast that size inside the atoll would have sunk the entire island under a boiling sea of radiation. They admit that the crater from Bravo on the sea floor “is 2,200 yards across and 80 yards deep, shaking islands more than 120 miles away.” That’s a crater more than a mile and a quarter across. The heat created was almost 100,000o F, which is 9 times hotter than the surface of the Sun. The fireball was nearly five miles wide, and the mushroom rose to 60 miles. But get this: just 10 years after the last nuclear blast there in 1958, the original residents were allowed to go back to Bikini. It was only after finding high levels of Strontium 90 in crabs that they were removed again. I beg you to read that closely, since it is stated in just that way at Wikipedia.

They wanted to go back, they did go back, and the only reason they couldn’t stay was because of radiation tests on crabs? You have to be kidding me! The place should have looked worse than the surface of the Moon and been completely uninhabitable. The natives would have burst into tears and told the ship to turn around and get them out of there. Instead, they landed and began living there, only to be removed after tests. We are told that crops were replanted in 1968, and grew! Beyond that, we see something is planted there in rows. Who planted it? Does that seem like a good place to plant a crop? Do you think that crop was planted by guys in radiation suits? Finally, look at all the well maintained roads. Do you think those are left over from 56 years ago? I will be told the US Army is using the Atoll to test radiation-tolerant plants. If so, the test looks incredibly successful. Whatever they have injected into the plants and soil they should inject into themselves, to make radiation-tolerant people. Oh, and don’t forget the radiation-tolerant cat: In 2008, the Daily Mail in London admitted that sea life in and around the atoll is abundant, with huge coral trees growing underwater and schools of fish swimming in the mile-wide Bravo “crater.”

What’s more, Wikipedia admits that diving tours have been given there since 1998. Do they swim in lead suits? Oh, they don’t need to because nuclear contamination can’t move through sea water, and doesn’t last for decades. Wrong. Just ask yourself this: is that what they are telling you about Fukushima: the sea water is blocking all release of radiation and it will only last a few years? No. If that were the case, Los Alamos National Laboratory could just throw all its high-level waste into the oceans. Why do you think they go to the trouble of burying that waste at great depths in unpopulated areas? Because according to the mainstream story, it will be hot for centuries. High-level waste has a very long halflife, and while it is true that decommissioned bombs aren’t said to be as big a problem, it isn’t decommissioned bombs were are talking about here. It is exploded bombs. In exploded bombs—as in reactor cores—very high heats have been created, as well as large amount of fission. Over 42 megatons of fission yield were detonated in Bikini from 1946 to 1958.

It is for this reason that the stories don’t add up. We are being told many contradictory things. If all these giant hydrogen bombs had actually been detonated there, the Bikini Atoll should not be now be green and cultivated, the coral and fish should not thrive there, no diving tours should be given there, and no natives should have ever returned, even for a moment. Also consider this: if the Bravo blast had really created surface temperatures of 100,000F in a fireball five miles wide, that heat would have to dissipate in all directions, through all media. The sea would have boiled for many miles and the atmosphere would have been scorched for many more. The landmass of the Atoll would have been in or near the edge of that initial fireball, so we should ask what happens to land that is heated to that degree. Even if the temperature had dropped by a factor of ten at that distance from center, that would still indicate a temperature of the land of 10,000F, which is the temperature they now give to the core of the Earth. If you heat land to that temperature and then let it cool, you wouldn’t expect it to just return to its original form, would you? If you heat sand and rocks and dirt to that temperature, it melts. In fact, it melts at about 1/5th that temperature, creating magma.

When it cools, it is then igneous rock. But the surface of the Bikini Atoll is still limestone and sand. Limestone melts at 1,500F, which is 67 times cooler than the temperature said to be created by Bravo. Sand normally melts at above 2,000F, so we should also see the beaches at Bikini turned to glass. We don’t. So what does this faking indicate? I would say it indicates one of two things*: either the entire nuclear program has been faked to keep your ass under the desk, ducked and covered; or the nuclear program is real but our military didn’t wish to cause this amount of real destruction on our lovely home planet Earth. Those who are familiar with the scruples of the military wouldn’t bet on the second possibility, seeming to leave us with the first. However, the second possibility may have a variation: perhaps the military wasn’t allowed to run these tests. That implies someone or something which has the power to disallow the military from doing things, which leads us into other problems. I will leave that problem unsolved for now, only giving you a pointer, which is this: either someone behind our own government is more benevolent than we think, or someone behind the Russian government is more benevolent (and powerful) than we think, or the apparent benevolence we see here comes from some hidden third party. Whatever explanation you choose to embrace should give you a surge of hope. Things may be bad, but they may not be quite as bad as the story we have been sold.

The fact that our government has long been faking so many events gives you no reason to trust them, but it beats the hell of the events being real. Given the choice of an honest government and terrible real events or a dishonest government and terrible fake events, I will take the second any day. *I will be told there is a third possibility: they wanted pictures to act as propaganda, but couldn’t shield the film from gamma radiation, even ten miles out. So the events were real but they had to fake the pictures. That explanation may hold near ground zero, where no film (especially video) camera could possibly work. But at a distance of many miles, that explanation falls apart. Ionizing radiation from a blast is said to be only 5% of the total energy, which drops by the square with distance. So while you wouldn’t want to be standing there for any amount of time, a camera with a fast shutter speed should have a high probability of capturing some visible light without also capturing a fatal gamma ray. The Russian’s Tsar Bomba picture was taken 100 miles out, so they shouldn’t have had to fake that. But they did.

http://mileswmathis.com/bikini.pdf