I haven’t taken the time to read Michael Palmer’s ebook, so I don’t really know how strong is the case he makes. I’ve pursued so many unconventional perspectives on so many things which upon close investigation look almost certain to be true - the claim that the attempted assassination of Trump was a hoax is a case in point - that I’m not sure I want to pursue yet another one in depth, though if nuclear weapons are a hoax it is certainly an important one to investigate.
Let me add a bit of personal history. I studied Physics as an undergrad in the 60s. One summer I got a job as a technician to aid a grad student who was studying radioactive cesium in the atmosphere. It was assumed that the radioactive cesium had been spewed recently by one of the nuclear weapons tests and they were measuring the amounts of cesium 137 in the atmosphere in various locations in order to determine how much mixing there was in one part of the atmosphere compared to another. I seem dimly to remember that there was some surprise that the mixing of air between the Northern hemisphere and Southern hemisphere occurred more rapidly than expected.
So if the assumption that a nuclear test explained the changing global distribution of radioactive cesium was false, there would have to be some alternative explanation. There must be many thousands (millions?) of people like me who have some personal experience that we assume is explained by the conventional account of the development of nuclear weapons. While no single one of these experiences counts as much evidence, a full investigation of the matter would have to give alternative explanations for a wide range of them.
I don't know much about the fallout issue. I would point out - however - that a similar spectrum of radioactive isotopes is produced in nuclear power reactors as that of the postulated nuclear weapon.
Well, yes, that’s a candidate alternative explanation that would need to be explored.
Another set of questions that would stand in need of alternative explanations would be “What did Ted Hall and Klaus Fuchs think they were doing when they passed information to the Soviets? Did they think that the Manhattan project was successful? Were they in a position to know the truth? Would it make any sense to suppose that they were involved in perpetrating a hoax? What did MI5 think when they interrogated Fuchs?” Etc.
From a quick search I see that Palmer discusses Fuchs, so it is clear that he thinks that the story of Fuchs does not present a conclusive counter-argument to his thesis. In order for me to come to any conclusion, though, would require a lot of time that I don’t have right now.
The imprisonment - or "internment" in the case of Heisenberg - of various scientists with nuclear physics expertise - is hard to untangle. I'm not sure it means much one way or the other.
And Russia. And China. And France. And Pakistan. I would just say that it doesn't take much to claim to have nuclear weapons - nor to fake a nuclear test.
Why wouldn't more people call out the fake assassination attempt? Who knows? My view is that there is very little difference between the proverbial front page of the newspaper and the comics section.
I haven’t taken the time to read Michael Palmer’s ebook, so I don’t really know how strong is the case he makes. I’ve pursued so many unconventional perspectives on so many things which upon close investigation look almost certain to be true - the claim that the attempted assassination of Trump was a hoax is a case in point - that I’m not sure I want to pursue yet another one in depth, though if nuclear weapons are a hoax it is certainly an important one to investigate.
Let me add a bit of personal history. I studied Physics as an undergrad in the 60s. One summer I got a job as a technician to aid a grad student who was studying radioactive cesium in the atmosphere. It was assumed that the radioactive cesium had been spewed recently by one of the nuclear weapons tests and they were measuring the amounts of cesium 137 in the atmosphere in various locations in order to determine how much mixing there was in one part of the atmosphere compared to another. I seem dimly to remember that there was some surprise that the mixing of air between the Northern hemisphere and Southern hemisphere occurred more rapidly than expected.
So if the assumption that a nuclear test explained the changing global distribution of radioactive cesium was false, there would have to be some alternative explanation. There must be many thousands (millions?) of people like me who have some personal experience that we assume is explained by the conventional account of the development of nuclear weapons. While no single one of these experiences counts as much evidence, a full investigation of the matter would have to give alternative explanations for a wide range of them.
I don't know much about the fallout issue. I would point out - however - that a similar spectrum of radioactive isotopes is produced in nuclear power reactors as that of the postulated nuclear weapon.
Well, yes, that’s a candidate alternative explanation that would need to be explored.
Another set of questions that would stand in need of alternative explanations would be “What did Ted Hall and Klaus Fuchs think they were doing when they passed information to the Soviets? Did they think that the Manhattan project was successful? Were they in a position to know the truth? Would it make any sense to suppose that they were involved in perpetrating a hoax? What did MI5 think when they interrogated Fuchs?” Etc.
From a quick search I see that Palmer discusses Fuchs, so it is clear that he thinks that the story of Fuchs does not present a conclusive counter-argument to his thesis. In order for me to come to any conclusion, though, would require a lot of time that I don’t have right now.
The imprisonment - or "internment" in the case of Heisenberg - of various scientists with nuclear physics expertise - is hard to untangle. I'm not sure it means much one way or the other.
How do.yoy square this theory with fact that countries like India and DPRK claim to have nukes?
And Russia. And China. And France. And Pakistan. I would just say that it doesn't take much to claim to have nuclear weapons - nor to fake a nuclear test.
Why wouldn't the US call out the fakeness of the tests when the country is ostensibly an enemy?
Why wouldn't more people call out the fake assassination attempt? Who knows? My view is that there is very little difference between the proverbial front page of the newspaper and the comics section.