What the Nuclear Hoax Implies

I would like everyone to consider what the nuclear hoax implies. Really, this could easily be the mother of all hoaxes of the twentieth century.

Consider that the nuclear bomb was impossible to make. The science was not there. The theories were incorrect. The geniuses of all geniuses were fabrications. Not even a thousand billion dollars could produce the impossible – a weapon of apocalyptic proportions, that produces the heat of 10,000 suns. Just bollocks. The bomb never made anyone surrender. It never won a war. It did not deter wars. It did not stop communism. The communists were never any nuclear threat. The cold war was based on poorly done fantasy movies. The build-up of military industrial complex, which was sustained to counter the Soviet nuclear threat, was actually a big lie. The massive secret infrastructure to counter the Soviet nuclear threat was a big lie as well. The space race based on superior technology is in question consequently. Excuse me, but the whole rationale for building the massive state super complex after WWII is a complete fraud. And all the nuclear paranoia promoted by the state is down right evil. Even now the rhetoric, that States fart out on mass media about this or that power trying to obtain nuclear weapons, is a complete charade.

I sleep better. There is no doomsday weapon and there has never been any. We’ve been tricked again.

65 thoughts on “What the Nuclear Hoax Implies

  1. It really is comforting to me as well. But in polemics, I find that most people can’t bear the cognitive dissonance of even contemplating this massive fraud. In a hundred arguments over the topic, I’ve only had three people even consider the possibility, and only one concur. That math is neither here nor there, of course, being entirely subjective. I don’t expect people who haven’t followed the path (either historically or with the physics) to agree out of hand. It’s a tough path.

    I would go so far as to say, financially as a matter of numbers, it’s the greatest hoax in HUMAN history. Where did all that money go, if not to nukes? Into the pockets of the already-rich, of course.

    But here is a simple video I made detailing my chief problem with fission detonation: there’s simply not enough energy to cause such a chain reaction.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Welcome, Jared. I have to admit, that I occasionally struggle with the big picture as well since there are so many layers of lies, it’s just seems preposterous. Most likely, we’ve been lied to trillion times already and there seems to be no end to this.

      I rarely had a chance to discuss nuclear weapon hoax in person, only with my close friends and family members. However, it is most certainly not the opening subject where I’d begin to polemize about fakery business with a random person. My personal opinion of mathematics behind the alleged nuclear bomb is that I’m left with no confidence at all to accept it as fundamental, not after reading Miles Mathis, Steven Crothers or Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s work in science. Fortunately for me, my desire to understand some modern physic principles drove me to Mathis eventually, discovering an overwhelming amount of his un-unified theory. And looking back at my process of learning / awakening – nuclear hoax would be too much to handle for starters, I believe “truther rookie” needs to re-contemplate the reality and simultaneously find a new “authority”, using his/her own brain excessively while maneuvering among shills, trolls, gatekeepers, false heroes and staged events. So I totally agree with you,

      This short post was a consequence of an interesting read about the Fukushima “accident” here https://311truth.wordpress.com/, where I found so far the most rational explanation of that particular event. There is just one strong objection to that particular theory – it involves nuclear bomb as the weapon of (author’s) choice to get Fukushima’s reactors obliterated. So I composed a rather long email and forwarded it to the particular author to reconsider his theory and exclude nuclear bomb from otherwise excellent theory. The essence of that email is my above post, so there are no particular links where I would normally include them to substantialize my claims.

      Money-wise, could actually be the absolute greatest, I agree.

      My congratulations on that simulation, very nicely done. I would like to ask what parameters is it based on? How did you shape the rules of particles’ movement, using which physics / math to describe it? I can remember similar “feel” of videos I watched when reading about Mathis particles essays, are you the author of some of those as well? Like here:


      1. Greetings Vexman, you come well-recommended by other, hmm, “Mathisian” friends I’ve talked to, chiefly Josh and some pals on our physics forum.

        Mathis has linked to me once or twice, so you may have seen my animations before. Yep, I’m DragonFace on Vimeo – old account but it works for now. The physics engine I’m using is Autodesk Maya’s nParticle simulator, chiefly, but as with all computer sims it’s crap in = crap out. So I make some mistakes, but always try to let the viewer know those are my mistakes (if any), not Miles’. In much of the animations, such as the Stacked Spin videos, there’s a lot of VFX keyframing going on as well for presentation purposes. My older ones are NOT accurate. The latest ones should be, or vastly closer (margin of error, especially since my animation frames aren’t subdivisible really, so a .707 spin retiming for new spins may get muddier over time). I consult with Miles heavily on each one, though he’s usually quite curt in his replies as is his wont.

        That neutron/fission vid was just a logic problem really. If an incoming neutron of V velocity hits two (relatively) stable neutrons, one after another, then it might lose .5V the first hit (putting two neutrons at .5V, total) and then another .5 the second hit, putting only one neutron at .5V and two at .25V. Conservation of energy. It’s a really simple one and I’m sure there’s holes in the premise, but the points is I’m trying to understand how Uranium would fission with such a mechanism. The “binding energy” or Mathis’ charge bond would surely release some charge photons, perhaps many, but our neutrons are still losing energy it would seem. I have not consulted Miles on that one, but it’s one of the problems I see with fission physics in general, off the top of my head.

        Hope you find some of those vids helpful in some fashion.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Oh well, I’m flattered big time 🙂 I met Josh online while searching for some like-minded people for physics discussion, he turned to be a great guy, actually, with a sharp mind and we seem to share some common values as well. As of others, I can’t remember anybody else that I had talked to in connection to Mathis physics, if I exclude cluesforum members and my attempt there before getting banned. So I’m extremely happy to have met another Mathis supporter!

    Thanks for your explanation. I did find those videos very helpful actually, as Mathis’ particles and spins were very hard to get grasp of. They still are, as a matter of fact. Visualizing it while observing mechanics made much more sense than his essays. Your videos are adding a visual component for anybody getting into Mathesian physics, in my opinion it was a big deal so thank you for that. I presume you did it on “pro bono” basis, spending long hours on programming overall.

    Sure, preservation of energy is observable in nature and in controlled environment, so I as well believe it’s fundamental. When I thought about the nuclear fission from this angle, it’s even more illogical for the atom bomb to be really functioning as said. I’m no expert though, my understanding of physics had to be reconsidered and re-comprehended as I discovered Mathis charge theory. I’d love to see Mathis debunking nuclear reaction of atomic bomb with his physics rather than using MSM-produced video material to show it’s been fake propaganda. On the other hand, your argument seems to be enough to show improbability of chain nuclear reaction, so I’m even more convinced in nuclear hoax.


    1. Long time since we exchanged any thoughts, isn’t it? But I’m somehow glad you came as first to break the silence 🙂

      I think nuclear power plants may indeed harness energy coming from radioactive fuel used within their cores. Although I don’t understand that technology, I still think that these huge installations are capable of firstly producing enormous amounts of heat, which transforms water to steam, which is then used to put large turbines in motion, producing electricity in a rather complicated way. Radioactivity is real for sure and I think that harnessing some extra heat that is a byproduct, actually, can be achieved. But that’s just my opinion. We have one of these plants in my small country and there are some environmental issues with a nearby river, which gets excessively warmed up by cooling the reactors. So there is something going on inside, that is produsicng all that heat.


      1. all power plants produce electricity in the same way: there is a generator using coils rotating against each other. The force of rotation is so forced into electromagnetic field and produces electricity. This method applies to all kinds of power plants. Except solar panels of course. Think electrical engine. It takes some electricity to create the rotating force through two systems of coils. If you rotate the engine yourself, it will produce electricity. That’s the idea. The easiest method to produce the rotating force is the ancient steam machine. Power plants heat water to create steam pressure or they use the force of waterfalls and turbines to rotate the coils. You can buy a small power generator using conventional fuel engine. There even is one generator in your car. Bicycles often use a small generator called dynamo to produce electricity for the light. I’ve seen a small reactor in my university time. Small means the size of a regular house. I’ve been in the hall with the cooling pool many times. It mainly produces large amounts of heat within a controlled environment allowing students of physics do their measurements. It’s not that complicated. Nukes, we are told, use a different principle. They use the fake “critical force”. Since there is no such thing in nature, the critical mass must be created with some explosives, etc. We know all evidence for the existence of nukes is fake so we can assume there is no critical mass possible and therefore no nukes. We don’t have the same kind of information about nuclear plants. And the nuclear reaction does not contradict other rules of physics. And then there is the sun, burning over us every day. What produces the heat on the sun if not some kind of nuclear reaction?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Totally with you, and to answer your last question, it’s charge input (photons) from the planets, returning to the sun, and charge input from the galaxy itself (and other stars) that produces the sun’s heat. Yes, it’s fusing helium at the core and larger elements the further out you go, but the fusion is the byproduct of this charge input, not the cause of it. To fuse atoms, the local charge field must be very dense. Even fusing helium takes a great amount of charge. So that heat (which is infrared photons, which are the average wavelength of charge) already existed before the fusion occurs, or else there wouldn’t be enough pressure to fuse them. As usual, the mainstream answer has it backwards. They’d have us think that the fusion causes the heat, when it’s the other way around.

          Here’s a video diagram using Mathis’s charge profile of Helium, the so-called “alpha particle” :

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Nuclear power plants are actually evidence against explosive fission. I have no problem believing in steam engines.

      One thing Mathis has pointed out is that the by-products of uranium fission are highly electron-emissive, chiefly cesium. He’s written that the PTB likely use these by-products themselves, for powering various non-public devices and transportation methods. I don’t know if I agree with that sans any hard evidence of these devices, but it’s not a stretch to think that the PTB keep a lot of tech from us, especially since there’s been such a huge diversion and cover-up of physics in the past century.

      That is to say, we the people get only the bullshit physics, the toy devices and such. The ultra-rich get a higher tier of tech and use more energy to power it, possibly. I don’t find it farfetched. I work with and build computers for a living and have studied them in great depth, and it seems obvious to me that someone is stifling the tech.


      1. The nuclear hoax is certainly one of the biggies.

        I don’t know that nuclear weapons were or are impossible to make, however. Maybe so in 1945 but I suspect they could be made today. I don’t think the lack of real nukes is due to technological issues. I think it’s that our controllers simply don’t want the riffraff messing with anything that could seriously damage their property. So, they don’t allow real nukes to actually be manufactured. But, they do want the public to fear nukes as it is an effective means of control so they fake it.


        1. I’m curious why you think they would fake them in 1945, but then somehow develop them later? Why do you suspect that? Also, wouldn’t the technical issues be the same then as now, since we’re talking about fundamental nuclear physics?

          I do concur with you that they don’t want to damage their property – not TOO much. Since they view the Earth as their property, and all the people on it, they must keep it somewhat intact. Free-range slavery.

          Here is a short video I made illustrating my main “beef” with explosive fission. In short, if the incoming neutrons have a certain energy, it must divide down between all the other neutrons, not multiply. An explosive chain reaction would require energy that isn’t there, although there is plenty of charge holding uranium together. So we would have a release of some “binding energy” (archaic term, now) but is that enough to cause a chain reaction?

          (the alpha here is the central alpha tying uranium together. Uranium is basically a molecule, compared to other atoms)


  3. “I’m curious why you think they would fake them in 1945, but then somehow develop them later? Why do you suspect that?”

    That’s not what I wrote at all. I believe they faked them then and now and all the years in between.

    I only said I suspect it may be possible to make them. I didn’t say they “developed them later” or at any time. Only that it may be possible to make them.


    1. “Maybe so in 1945 but I suspect they could be made today.”

      That’s precisely what you said, “today” being the later time. I’m not picking on you, but that’s what you wrote. My question was, “What makes you suspect that they could be made now?” As in, perhaps you have some evidence that we may not have? Genuinely asking because I genuinely want to know what’s going on with these devices, fake or not.

      Please don’t feel like I’m picking on you. We agree entirely here, I just wondered if you knew something fresh that I may have missed in my research. 🙂


  4. No, I don’t have any inside information on nuclear technology.

    Keep in mind that I said “suspect,” that is, it’s my own personal conjecture only.

    In a nutshell the reason I suspect this is because –

    1) Some nuclear technology does exist in verifiable forms such as medical applications

    2) Certain research applications such as particle acceleration and various “atom-splitting” activities are probably real too in my opinion as they are widely accessible and observable at universities and research centers.

    3) The same goes for small scale reactors (all a reactor really does is get hot – how hard is that?)

    4) Even some consumer products use some sort of nuclear tech such as common smoke detectors

    So, it looks to me that physicists are not exactly clueless about nuclear science. They can produce predictable effects and hardware and have been using nuclear applications for some time now.

    I realize that the above examples are not the same as building a nuclear bomb but they do demonstrate some degree of understanding of nuclear science so it is my suspicion that it may be possible for them to build a nuke. But, again, this is only a suspicion on my part.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Just to clarify my answer above:

    I am convinced that nuclear weapons are a hoax and that large scale nuclear power plants are also probably a hoax.


    1. Are you familiar with Miles Mathis’ work on the nucleus, by chance? His is the only real work in the field since Einstein, basically. He’s the first to diagram atomic structure based on the charge field, and it’s very compelling. Here’s what Uranium looks like:

      Diagram 1

      And that end black disc is the alpha (helium) structure I was diagramming in my video, above.

      Diagram 2

      I agree with your points, but would also agree that the various techs are inherently very different from splitting uranium or plutonium, and of course no fusion has ever been accomplished aside from the fake “thermonuclear” weapons. I find it exceedingly suspicious that in the 70 years since hydrogen fusion bombs came to be, no other tech has emerged from those “discoveries”.

      I also find it ultimately suspicious that in all that time, not one single accidental detonation has occurred. One might say they take measures to be sure this is safe, but every country with nukes? Are we to believe that even India has the same tech as the US, and thus no accidents, ever? Not even in submarines have any documented accidents occur, meanwhile every day there are accidents with conventional munitions, in any military force.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Thank you sir, I’m not used to this forum’s file and link conventions and couldn’t find any way to edit my post after it posted.


      1. Very interesting comments from all of you.

        You’ve commented that in the last 70 years no other tech has emerged from these discoveries and I would argue here. I’m very much convinced that UFO sightings are mostly our own Earthly technology which most people associate with the aliens. Since we haven’t seen any similar technology used by our armies, a UFO seen anywhere must belong to aliens, right? But does it really? The technology seems to be there and I think PTB have that technology for long now, maybe it’s already some 3rd or 4th generation of the same since the Rockwell incident. And that would explain as well why PTB have continued with the nuke weapon scam since it was allegedly invented – the alleged super-weapon played a crucial role in dividing the World during Cold war. And it was great cover for disguising real high-tech weapons and technology tests. All that propaganda around it was merely a distraction or diversion, if you will. Once they might have actually made some real break-through in nuclear field inventing some bad-ass energy source/weapon, I’m absolutely sure we weren’t in the know about it. That would as well explain the mind-numbing trillions of $$$ missing in the US treasury, that weren’t yet accounted for. Some portion of it was their R&D budget, I’m convinced about it. So, to say that no other tech emerged from their efforts starting in 1930’s is more speculative than to say, that they were in possession of some bad-ass tech for long years already. So actually it’s exactly because of this suspicion you mention that it makes me believe they’ve progressed long ago.


        1. I would tend to agree with you, although I’m not sure of what evidence we have that’s accurate about such technologies. Mentioned it earlier but I wanted to dig up that paper by Mathis on the topic and re-read it so I could at least get the specifics right. From that paper:

          “With that in mind, I returned to Wikipedia, where I studied the page for Uranium. I have been there
          before for my science papers, but never with this question in mind. What jumped out at me this time
          was the fact that Uranium is very electropositive. What is more, once it splits, it often splits into
          Caesium, which is the most electropositive element. What does that mean? It means that these
          substances produce electrons very readily. It doesn’t take much energy to free an electron, and that free electron can be used for power. In fact, it takes less energy to release it than it provides once free,
          which is the key here. It is like money from nothing.

          “Problem is, Caesium is very rare. It occurs in small quantities in pollucite, but it costs more to extract
          than it is worth. I assume it was found it was much more cost effective to get it from Uranium. People
          think Uranium is rare, but it isn’t. It is more common than Mercury or Silver. Caesium exists at three
          parts per million in the crust, but Uranium exists as high-grade ore at 200,000 ppm. That’s as common
          as Tin or Zinc. Just from that, I would assume scientists have discovered some way to generate cheap
          power from Caesium, via electron production, and the entire nuclear story is just a cover.

          “But if so, where is all that energy going? We have seen in previous papers it isn’t going to bombs or even production of bombs. It also isn’t going to production of electricity for mass use, since in the US they decided to shut down that industry. It now looks to me like they hoaxed the big events like Three
          Mile Island, to scare people off this kind of power. After early decisions to divert some of the new energy to the public, those decisions were apparently reversed. We can’t know why, but I suggest either there was too little energy produced to be used both by the public and in secret, or the secret uses later ballooned, making energy sharing with the public unfeasible.”

          And a bit further down:

          “I suggest to you that the Manhattan Project wasn’t about producing bombs. We had no need of such bombs, since the wars were all managed anyway. They always have been. The project was much more likely about producing a new energy source, and then hiding that energy source behind a big fake story. And the bomb story was just a part of the misdirection. Remember, the alien story started at precisely the same time. Roswell was in 1947, which is not a coincidence.

          “Why not? Because they were using the new energy source to power a new form of transport. Occasionally, the public would see this transport, so we had to be told those were aliens flying around in those new ships. Not rich people, but aliens. This explains why Roswell was on the front line for this story: it needed to be, because it was in New Mexico. People were seeing strange things in New Mexico, because LANL was there. So the story hit first where it
          needed to hit first.

          “But the new transport isn’t esoteric in any way. It isn’t back-engineered alien tech. It is just Uranium/Caesium tech, probably with some new magnetic tech stirred in. In fact, if it were really esoteric, it wouldn’t have all the waste. In the next historical step, maybe they will figure that out. Maybe they will read my papers, look at their magnetic tech, and realize they can do the same thing without burning all this Uranium. There are hundreds of sources of free energy available, and using electrons from Caesium already looks like one of the worst of them.

          “This would explain why the superwealthy weren’t sad to see the Concorde go: they didn’t need it. It would also explain why you don’t see the superwealthy even in first class. You just see businessmen. I would assume the billionaires and trillionaires are traveling silently at night using the new transports. It is how they get around so quickly and easily, with no jet lag.”

          There’s a LOT more in that paper (posted below) but I think as usual Mathis makes some great points. I’m kind of a professional arguer, especially on my Facebook page “Really Fake Science”. But I have a hard time poking holes in his arguments, generally, and that could be bias but it could also be because he’s even better at debate than me. I’m not egomaniacal enough to believe that nobody is better at debate than me. And I’m sure there are some holes in his stuff, but given his work in physics and the scope of his other papers, I tend to agree with him. And you, Vex. This is good stuff.

          So What is Really Going on
          behind the nuclear programs?
          by Miles Mathis

          Click to access caes.pdf


      2. Because unlike chemical munitions, nuclear cores aren’t unstable against small perterbations. They don’t detonate accidentally because the probability of enough things simultaneously going wrong is vanishingly small, just as nobody fears a book will spontaneously combust at room temperature.


        1. Well, that’s one way to be absolutely wrong, “Myth Buster”. Probability has nothing to do with it. As shown above in Miles’ diagrams of Uranium, we’re simply dealing with an alpha connection between the two chief atomic structures – so there’s no “enough things simultaneously going wrong” at all, since there’s only one thing that CAN “go wrong” when Uranium splits into its two primary constituents. A neutron must be displaced. That’s it. So that is your main error and misdirection here.

          Your analogy about a book combusting isn’t remotely relevant. It’s not even a straw man, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. We were talking about Uranium splitting. All this would take is a proton or neutron slamming into one of those two central alpha neutrons. That’s it. But the problem isn’t that Uranium does split, naturally, it’s that the “chain reaction” concept itself in this case is erroneous as well. It requires one generate additional velocity/momentum from thin air. It defies the laws of kinematics, outright, as I show in the above video link.

          An incoming particle of x speed cannot impart a speed greater than x to the neutron it collides with. The speed is either fully transferred, leaving the incoming particle relatively stationary, or the speed is divided into the resulting vectors. It cannot increase, not on its own. And such a magical gain in velocity is what a “chain reaction” would require.

          An apologist would say, “Well it’s the BINDING ENERGY of Uranium that adds the velocity!” But binding energy doesn’t actually exist. It’s just a name. What DOES exist is charge channels, photons traveling through the Uranium nucleus. But that doesn’t mean THEY would propel the displaced neutron out at some increased velocity at all – since the neutron is ALSO channeling charge photons, itself. So we still have no additional input of energy to cause a “chain reaction”.

          That’s the MYTH you should have busted. Try harder next time.

          Liked by 1 person

      3. On the contrary, the fact that there has never been an accidental nuclear detonation is evidence that nuclear weapons are real. Conventional high explosives have detonated accidentally many times and in many places, so the fact that such has never happened with a nuclear weapon indicates that they function on a completely different mechanism. Simply put, you can’t detonate a nuke accidentally because if the explosive charges don’t detonate precisely as designed, you won’t get a nuclear explosion.


        1. Wrong. Nuke mechanisms are NOT different than other explosive mechanisms at all, because they are detonated BY those other mechanisms. You’ve never seen any designs? You’ve never researched the topic, but came here to completely fumble your logic and flop around on the topic anyway?

          Not only that, but if nuclear detonations were possible in the way that we’re told, then natural uranium concentrations would be detonating randomly throughout history, and possibly even daily. Uranium is almost as common as tin, you know, in the Earth’s crust. And according to the THEORY, all it takes is a stray neutron. Remember the theory?

          No, you don’t. Pretty hard to remember something you obviously never studied.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. You make good points and my suspicions may be wrong but they are only suspicions and only that technology to make a nuke may exist, not that any HAVE been made. I don’t think any nukes have ever actually been built.

    As you have said …

    “…it’s not a stretch to think that the PTB keep a lot of tech from us, especially since there’s been such a huge diversion and cover-up of physics in the past century.

    “That is to say, we the people get only the bullshit physics, the toy devices and such. The ultra-rich get a higher tier of tech and use more energy to power it, possibly.”

    That higher tier of tech may include the real recipes for nukes, no?

    I’ve read many of Miles’ essays but not many of his scientific papers. I am mostly interested in his “Updates” on fake history, media hoaxes, etc.


  7. I find Mathis’ cesium hypothesis very reasonable. I assume they actually need more uranium. On some forum that discussed the nuke hoax, somebody mentioned that trains probably carry more uranium than the official figure(I have some vague memory of a discussion that was probably on http://www.big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/index.html ). Maybe they even lie about the quantities of uranium found in nature.
    Nobody is denying radioactivity. So the talk about medical devices and smoke alarms doesn’t belong to this discussion. The nuke hoax is more about the “big boom” that scares most people (from bombs or from nuclear power plants). On the nukelies forum they discussed the possibility of a nuclear exit strategy. For example they shutdown many Japanese reactors after Fukushima, but some reactors are operational again. Will they eliminate nuclear power plants in the near future?


  8. “On 30 May 2011, the German government announced a plan to shut all nuclear reactors by 2022” , from Wiki. There were some protests, delaying the plan when people were out in the streets, 1 year after that, Angela Merkl made it definite, no revision possible. So it’s already happening. And I think Fukushima was a hoax, presented as an ultimate security threat that gave them official reason to phase out with nuclear PP. We’ve seen that strategy already used with some other issues, the principle is very much the same. Maybe it’s just a play to get failed solar panel investments out of the red numbers, but maybe it’s about some larger change we could expect.


  9. So, if UFOs are really craft employing secret nuclear technology then would that tend to substantiate the story told by Bob Lazar? He claims that the saucers he helped back-engineer were powered by a form of high tech nuclear power – a reactor using “element 115.”

    Wikipedia strongly implies that Lazar is a liar and con artist and I generally interpret wiki information as being the opposite of truth. Anyone the wiki touts as being great is really a scoundrel and anyone they say is a scoundrel is probably OK.

    Also, Stanton Friedman makes no bones about saying Lazar is a con artist but Friedman has “spook” written all over him so this only tends to validate Lazar as well.

    On the other hand I know that Lazar is himself a spook. He admits and has provided undisputed proof (a W2 form) that he worked for Naval Intelligence so I may regret even bringing this up but then again Miles’ piece on the nuclear hoax does seem to lend some credence to Lazar’s story at least in part.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I haven’t really studied or modeled Moscovium/Ununpentium from a charge perspective, but at first glance I don’t really see anything too important about it. Is it more electron-harnessing than Cesium? I’m not sure, but I’ll try to model it and see what we come up with, and bounce it off Miles of course for accuracy. He seems to be sold on Cesium as the #1 reason for fissioning Uranium, and may not be aware of Lazar’s story (fake or not), so perhaps his input will be worth getting.


  10. Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the pictures on this blog loading?I’m trying to figure out if its a problem on my endor if it’s the blog. Any responses would be greatly appreciated.


    1. I don’t have any issues with the pictures loading. Try opening the page with some other browser, it may solve the problem.


  11. Greetings from Ohio! I’m bored at work so I decided to browse your site on my iphone during lunch break. I enjoy the knowledge you present here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home. I’m surprised at how quick your blog loaded on my mobile .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, excellent site!


  12. I just want to mention some science fiction related to the nuke hoax. If you have time you can listen to the audiobook version of “The Defenders” by Philip K. Dick https://librivox.org/the-defenders-by-philip_k-_dick-2/ . If you want to read you can probably find a text version somewhere on the internet. Elements from the short story “The Defenders” were latter used in the novel “The Penultimate Truth”. I did not read “The Penultimate Truth”, but it may contain interesting things. “The Defenders ” is in the public domain, while “The Penultimate Truth” is not.

    Of course, the most important piece of literature when it comes to the nuke hoax is “The World Set Free” by H.G. Wells. At wiki we get this gem “Wells’s novel may even have influenced the development of nuclear weapons, as the physicist Leó Szilárd read the book in 1932, the same year the neutron was discovered. In 1933 Szilárd conceived the idea of neutron chain reaction, and filed for patents on it in 1934.” This novel is on my reading list, but I always have something else to do. If you like audiobooks, LibriVox has 2 versions.

    The movies Dr. Strangelove and Beneath the Planet of the Apes may contain some hidden gems. Of course, when we deal with fiction some people can accuse others of seeing what it is not there. But I have to say that at least the coincidences surrounding “The World Set Free” are too ridiculous (from what I gathered from the wiki page of the novel). Dr. Strangelove was supposedly directed by Stanley Kubrick, and we know that Kubrick’s movies are associated with other conspiracies or things that are most likely hoaxes.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I have not found much supporting evidence for “neutron chain reactions”, either in the mainstream or alternative physics. Nor in Mathisian physics, which is neither. It seems like yet another example of “something from nothing”, where they assume the incoming energy would create a higher outgoing energy (explosion) and then just claim something like “bonding energy” as the difference. They usually claim there’s a potential kinetic energy in there somewhere, and bury that variable under assumptions.

      If we give our incoming neutron a relative energy of 1, a neutron it strikes could receive half of that energy as a vector while the original retains half as its own rebound motion, whatever angle. Neither neutron carries more linear energy than its original energy. The mainstream has us believe that somehow this multiplies, instead of subtracts.

      It’s true that given enough incoming neutrons we could accelerate the “bound” neutrons in the subtrate’s alpha connectors (that is, the tiny helium connector between say Barium and Krypton in Uranium, as it’s fused in stars generally) but I don’t think the bombardment over time is what they mean by chain reaction. Blasting those alphas with a radial explosion of neutrons isn’t the same as a continuous bombarding stream. However, one might argue this explains the inefficiency of fission bombs for example.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Hello,
    and thanks for your work, all of you.
    does any one knows an internet entry which could recapitulate the basic understanding of Miles’ physics ? Frankly speaking, his science site is a mess for beginners like me …


    1. https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2018/05/16/the-mathisian-physics-primer-a-crowdsourcing-effort/

      Most of us were beginners when we stumbled across Mathis’s work. If you read the first few papers on his site in order, you should do pretty well. Time, the Moon Gives Up a Secret, and a few of his early essays. After you do five or so you can start jumping around to topics that interest you more and it will lead you to yet other topics.

      Did you have any specific questions? Something you’re stuck on? I have made several videos of some of his theories if you’d like, and you can always jump into our unofficial Mathis-Physics forum here. Most of your questions can be answered and we do enjoy conversation:


      Some vids of stacked spins and nucleus configurations; the older versions likely are works-in-progress so keep that in mind:

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Hi, Valuebreak. I saw Jared already replied to you with some important links. Maybe this may sound de-motivating, but I don’t think there is any shortcut to Miles work in physics.

      If your goal is to understand his charge and de-unification theory, you really need to read all of it. I my experience, every article / essay Miles wrote can be understood as he used a rather simple language, regardless of the subject at hand. Yet again, there is no other way to get familiar with his monumental work other than reading all of it. Hopefully, my comment won’t discourage you while you’re at it 🙂


      1. Hello, Mr Vexman,

        well, I don’t feel neither demotivation or discouragement. I am simply in will of accelerating my understanding.

        Your blog is a true gem for self questionning persons, let me adress my congratulations again.


      2. I agree with Vex yet again. Give yourself a realistic goal, say one paper a day. Read a new one every day, or at least start one and if it takes you a few days to get through (due to life itself or your comprehension or whatever, sometimes it takes me a few days to “swallow” it all myself) that’s fine. I was looking for one definitive paper that really sums it all up, but there’s just too much information TO sum up, aside from the mechanical definition of the Charge Field of real, spinning photons.

        It’s a way of life. Read his papers, read Vexman’s and Josh’s and Miles guest-writers as they interest you. Take your time, and if you get stuck on the physics or have questions, email Miles and post in that forum. I spend a lot of time discussing his physics, even on Facebook to my friends and stuff like that, so if you have any specific questions you can’t find answers on add me on FB and I’ll try to help out. I’m not a hardcore physicist but a pretty good student and hopefully can at least point you in the right direction.

        In my experience, Miles’ writing has never discouraged me. It’s more like a brilliant sense of discovery I feel, and revelation. It’s a treasure trove.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. Hello, Jared.
    Thanks for your quick answer, I feel honored a guy such like you takes time for me.
    Of course, I started doing the way you suggest : reading Miles papers in order from the beginning, My first entry was “celestial mechanics, unanswored questions”, and so on for a dozen of articles. And I must say my comprehension of his work is slow, I’m not a physician to begin with, vocabulary, acronyms, and underlying concepts are not familiar to me. plus, English is not my native language.
    That’s the reason why I asked for an already done starter which could have, in my opinion, saved some appreciable time for me. I must say I found an help with an interview of Miles by the guys of the Electric Universe. The very first link you gave seems to be very accurate in this goal, I’m going to study it carefully.
    So, thanks for your other proposal, I shall ask you any specific question here or on the forum.
    Again, thanks for your response.
    and my gratitude to Vewman for the whole blog.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Strangely it seems many have overlooked that using minimal math and physics is sufficient to expose nuclear weapons as a scam. First simply calculate the total energy in 50 kg (alleged critical mass) of U235. You will obtain what seems to be an astronomically large value. Then consider it was supposedly detonated 600 meters over Hiroshima. Next divide that energy by the volume of a sphere of radius 600 meters to obtain its average energy density. I done that calculation a couple of years of ago and I don’t have the values offhand, but I remember that considering that heat capacity of air the energy density was not even enough to raise the temperature of air by 1 degree C. Also remember that calculation is too generous in that they claim to release only 2 percent of the available energy of uranium in that so called critical mass. So we have proved that even if the recipe worked as described it would not have vaporized people as alleged.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I too have run some math on the situation, and while I don’t have it handy the alleged NON-detonated amount of uranium left over after Hiroshima’s (fake) blast should have put roughly a gram of powdered, radioactive uranium on every square meter of the city. And yet we have flowers growing there just a few weeks later, and it’s perfectly habitable now despite U235 having a half-life of 704 million years. So 99% of that uranium dust should still be there, or in their water supply, or basically melting everyone around.

      Uranium is too heavy even as a dust to “float” or become fallout. It should have dropped straight down after such a blast, over a certain radius yes but even a strong wind shouldn’t have stopped much of it from landing on the town. And yet, we find no uranium dust OR reports of it just after the “blast”. It just vaporized, I guess, but somehow didn’t split in the “detonation.”


  16. This can be an interesting article https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/dr-strangelove-and-the-insane-reality-of-nuclear-command-and-control/ . The article talks about pre-delegation. It also has this interesting quote “The theatrical device represented by the president’s moment-by-moment day-and-night access to the ‘football’, with its supposedly unique authorization codes, has always been that: theater — essentially a hoax.”. The nuclear football is the supposed briefcase that allows the president to authorize a nuclear attack.

    That quote belongs to Daniel Ellsberg. I just did a Google search and I see that Mathis already mentioned him a few times . It is hard to remember all these spooks, but I will probably remember him now.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. This is another useful link https://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/9/berger9art.htm. This is an essay by Albert L. Berger titled “The Triumph of Prophecy: Science Fiction and Nuclear Power in the Post-Hiroshima Period”. The essay mentions Solution Unsatisfactory by Robert A. Heinlein, which was supposedly written in 1941. The essay can be useful if you want to make a study about how science fiction created our perceptions about nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.

    Some of these works of fiction seem to be interesting enough to be read. Right now I only read The Defenders by Philip K. Dick (I actually listened to an audio version). Some of the parallels with real world from these books go beyond the nuclear bomb hoax. In the Defenders story, we found at the end that the nuclear war presented in the book was a hoax . In the World Set Free they create a World Government to stop the war. Even if you go to the wiki page of the Defenders you get this quote ” Humanity is almost ready for a single culture, the current worldwide division into American and Soviet sides being the final step”. My point is that some of these fiction stories seem to contain these types of gems that have strong parallels in the real world.

    Lol, if I talk so much about fiction I also want to mention the end times psyop. The nuclear hoax is a “match made in heaven” for the end times. If you go on Youtube and search “end times” you get a few thumbnails with the nuclear mushroom. And right now, from time to time, we hear about the Iran nuclear deal. Before I end this comment, I should mention the famous playground scene from “Terminator 2- The Judgement Day” that is usually called “the nuclear apocalypse scene” .

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Both of these vectors just add more and more evidence to me, Calgacus, that we’re on the right track here. Do you mind if I quote you and some of that information in my study on the Korean War? It’s a slow one but I’m making a bit of progress tonight. I’m trying to paint a picture that strategically they had EVERY reason to use nukes in the KW, but they did not because they could not. Because they aren’t real. And your prior post and link earlier today gave me even more insight.


      1. You can quote the info. In the end it doesn’t belong to me 🙂 . Are you saying that you are trying to do a paper on the Korean War? It would be a useful paper, since NK and Iran now play the role of the nuclear boogeymen. Maybe you can give more details about your paper, like the general ideas you want to present.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I was born in Seoul and the topic has always fascinated me. In my essay I hope to extend reasonable doubt about these nuclear weapons, by showing how they SHOULD have used them in Korea for tactical reasons, and that there were no real political or technical reasons that they should not have, if they were in fact real. It’s almost like trying to “prove a negative” however and the document is still a bit of a jumble of information so far. I’m trying to make it more solid but it’s really slow going. And it’s getting long.


          1. We like those long papers 🙂 All the best were always rather long-ish as there was so much to say and research “off course”.


  18. I found this discussion yesterday and then Googled “nuclear hoax”. I found a link to a book on Amazon titled – Death Object: Exploding the Nuclear Weapons Hoax- written by Akio Nakatani. I forked over the seven dollars for the kindle version and read it this morning. I’m really happy with my purchase. The author is described in the book as follows: “Akio Nakatani is a Professor of Applied Mathematics and Statistics. His research interests include Stochastic Systems, Parameter Estimation, Stochastic Optimization, Monte Carlo Methods and Simulation, Neural Networks, Statistical Pattern Recognition, Statistical Image Analysis, Nonparametric Bayes and Bayesian Hierarchical Models, Time Series, Graphical Models, Nonparametric Bayes and Bayesian Hierarchical Models.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for sharing, Tom. Would you mind explaining Akio’s angle to us here? I’m somehow discouraged to spend money on a mainstream physicist’s book, based on what I’ve learned from Miles Mathis about the real physics. It doesn’t mean Akio can’t be right with his stance, but can’t be sure unless one reads what he wrote. Since you already did that, I’d really appreciate you sharing it here.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Akio argues that a fission explosion is impossible. He says he has done a simulation and no matter what parameters are used, there is never an explosive result. The book is well written and goes on to analyze Trinity, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Bikini and the hundreds of films made of alleged explosions. He is Japanese and explains why the Japanese decided to go along with the a-bomb hoax. The book is a quick and enjoyable read and will give you plenty of ammunition discussing this subject with others.


  19. I think that we should also take a look at the spin promoted by the Galen Winsor. He promotes the idea that nuclear power is not dangerous. See for example this http://www.viewzone.com/afraid-of-Fukushima.html . There are a few Youtube videos with him discussing the “nuclear fear scam”, where he promotes nuclear energy.
    While writing this comment I put “nuclear hoax” on Google. I see the Japanese author mentioned by a commenter at the top . I also see debunker results like RationalWiki. The 6th result links to the Youtube video “Galen Winsor: The Nuclear Scare Scam”. I wonder if the Japanese book will remain at the top in the future. The results were different in the past. Nonetheless, this Winsor character probably plays an useful role to misdirect from the “nuke hoax”. In the end even the people that talk about the “nuke hoax” may act as misdirection from Mathis’ speculations, especially the one about caesium (which also explains the UFO phenomena).


  20. We picked up on the nuke hoax long ago when we noticed how those tens of
    thousands of warheads that –supposedly– could destroy the world hundreds
    of times over – – -just ‘disappeared’ from concern – – over night.


  21. ” INTEL does not care what people think– –
    ————————————- – – just so long as they are FRIGHTENED. ”
    ‘Psychological Warfare’


  22. The State’s ability to deceive the public, regarding such things as the existence of nuclear weapons, relies upon one fact more than any other; namely this, the science of logic hasn’t been taught in our State controlled public schools in living memory. John Gatto argues in his book “The Underground History of American Education ” that the State began to dumb-down our schools over a century ago, when they first seized control of our children’s education. True teaching of logic/rhetoric/dialectic had to go you see, so that they could more effectively lie to us about everything else . Logical arguments must be well supported by reliable evidence. That’s a law of logic that most people don’t properly understand . There is no reliable evidence that nuclear weapons exist . Just like there is no reliable evidence that Arab terrorists carried out the murders of September 11, 2001, or that man ever walked on the Moon .
    Here’s some info about the science of logic that the reader may find helpful.

    “Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori.”
    -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
    (“A priori” is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) ••••••••••

    ‘Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.’
    -Webster’s Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary ••••••••••

    ‘infer … v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence …’
    -Webster’s Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary ••••••••••

    ‘For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth.” -Celestine N. Bittle, “The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic” ••••••••••

    “We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is”.
    -Aristotle, Posterior Analytics ••••••••••

    “We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts.”
    -Aristotle, Rhetoric ••••••••••

    “Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one”
    -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 ••••••••••

    ‘Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently.’
    -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition ••••••••••

    ‘The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded.’
    -John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic ••••••••••

    ‘The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it’s occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains.’
    -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 ••••••••••

    “And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth.”
    -Anthony Collins, ‘A Discourse of Free Thinking’, 1713, taken from the first page of ‘Thinking to Some Purpose ‘ by L. Susan Stebbing ••••••••••

    ‘A high degree of probability is often called ‘practical certainty.’ A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ‘ proved ‘, but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ‘ beyond a reasonable doubt .’ To be ‘ beyond reasonable doubt ‘ is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind.’
    – L. Susan Stebbing, ‘Logic in Practice’, (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••

    ‘Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory.’
    -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ••••••••••


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s