Contrary to what we're all supposed to believe, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which were fake) there have been many, many dozens of tactical nuclear strikes (which were all too real).
There was just another tactical nuclear strike using two weapons on unknown targets. The video is not dated but the news broke today. I have never seen this particular strike before and I have seen video of quite a number of them, so I'm going on the assumption it's new and would have been taken the night of February 15-16
The video was originally posted to TikTok but I don't have the link. Here's the link to a slightly downrezzed version on YT (which you should consider saving): WTF, IS THIS REAL?!?!?
I can assure you it is real. In fact, you can see the towering mushroom cloud of the preceding strike. No one seems to know where this was, but someone on the video speaks a word which is said to be Russian.
These are without doubt nuclear detonations, if you have never seen one on a battlefield. Look how it completely lights up the sky and the landscape for several seconds, and very dark night falls thereafter. It's very hard to tell, but I would eyeball the yield at 10-15 kT.
All of this is being very heavily suppressed.
UPDATE 2/17: I've located one writeup of this event on alt-media: Nuclear war but not in Ukraine
Tell that to the people with Geiger counters and the well-documented years of lingering radioactivity.
you don't need a nuclear blast to leave radioactivity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
They include this quote on that page, just in case people go there with doubts about the reality of nuclear explosives:
Thanks wikipedia, I'll never question the reality of Nukes again...
But if anyone else feels like questioning them, they could do worse than reading "Death Object: Exploding The Nuclear Weapons Hoax"
You're correct that a mere conventional but dirty bomb could also spread radioactivity, but in 1945 we did not have radioactive material to spare to make dirty bombs. My ex-professor Richard Feynman was at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge, and the bomb was real and Hiroshima was real. He gave us anecdotes about some of it. He was involved in the difficult uranium separation process, and it was hard enough to make enough uranium 235 to make a bomb, much less have any to make an alternative dirty bomb which would be much less effective.
Also there were plenty of studies validating the reality of Hiroshima. Plus, there is the famous 'shadows on a wall' situation where the bomb energy was absorbed by the bodies of the killed civilians but passed them so their shadows were etched on the wall in a way that no conventional explosives could.
I have the impression a dirty bomb would be created using nuclear waste from nuclear energy generation (rather than especially formulated material) - which was actively being researched for commercial use at the beginning of the 40's by Argonne National Laboratory (according to wikipedia) - which to my mind means it was probably already being utilized by the military industrial complex in a non-commercial way, and then they would have access already to waste by the time they are doing test detonations...
You may say but then the radio-activty would be too weak... but then there is evidence that the radioactivity measured at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was very weak, or even non-existent.
It's one of those things thats so well known and such a striking visual of the nuclear detonation, without actually depicting detonation, that I wonder if those images depicting it were faked or perhaps even just caused by someone completely on fire falling against the wall. We are told they are shadows, but they are not sharp, clearly defined shadows, and they also look like they could be carbon soot on the wall in a vaguely human shape.
There were trees left standing at "ground zero" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The shadows in the images are left on concrete, the concrete was otherwise unscathed - not vaporized. There is a bridge directly under the detonation location, brick and mortar, still standing. Only the wooden structures burnt. The brick and mortar of the buildings remained standing, intact, just stripped of any wooden parts.
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki destruction doesn't look much different to the firebombing of Dresden, except that there were far more brick and mortar buildings in Dresden. Napalm dropped on buildings would burn away all the wooden ones (and wooden parts) which were the majority of the buildings in these fishing "cities" Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
A nuclear blast should be indiscriminate - it would vaporize all the wood, including the tress, not just the human structures made from wood. A Human directed firebombing campaign however, would target human structures and not necessarily be too concerned with burning down the trees that line the streets.
There is another book about Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically which tackles the issue based on the medical evidence of effects on victims - Hiroshima Revisited
That author believes real nukes were developed later, so it disagrees on that with the other book I've linked to.
Truth is stranger than fiction. You have merely been misinformed.
The earth is demonstrably and obviously flat ("level" is a more accurate word to use) on the scale in which we live and conduct all science. Not recognizing this is insane, and very sad.
You would benefit from discussing and exploring the subject further. Join us at the community I created specifically for the topic! It isn't at all what you think it is.
Nothing. You're right. The world is not perfectly flat, it's just mostly flat which is why we experience it that way (most especially thanks to water). It does have topography. Many use the word "level" instead, to try and avoid that issue. Language is imprecise.
The world is oriented level-ly. If that makes any sense to you. The world is planar and has topography on that plane, is another way to try and convey the same. It is also worth noting, that this is the case (demonstrably and experientially) regardless of the true shape of the world.
What I meant specifically, by your quoted statement was only to acknowledge that experiential reality. We don't experience a spherical world, we experience a (largely, and including topographical variance) flat one. This is also the reason that children almost all conceptualize (and draw) the world as a flat plane, before they are indoctrinated into other worldviews (under the guise of science and education).