Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


Thanks for posting the pics. It helps the thread if others can see the photos. As I noted before the white areas are the dry ground, the other stuff that looks like dunes and plants are actually the coral reef and the little critters, seaweed, etc. The water there is very clear and the depth of that area if from a few inches to 30 or 40 feet.

In the after photo you see the big blue hole that is 175 ft in depth.

Anyway, I think that this is one of the very best pieces of physical evidence that nukes actually do exist.

You asked why the areas are inhabitable, in the case of Enewetak the Air Force and Army Corps of engineers spent about 4 years cleaning up the island, 20 years after the last bomb tests. They scraped the top 6 feet of soil off the surface of the islands and buried it in the concrete lined cacoon that they built out of one of the craters. They then shipped in dirt to resurface the islands and then replanted vegitation.

When they were done the natives who had been deported in the 50's were allowed to return. The US Government has setup a monitoring station there and the natives are regularly tested for radiation exposure.

As for Nagasaki and Hiroshima, after the surrender the Army Corps of Engineers and the Japanese Government undertook a massive effort to clean up the radioactive debris. I have seen videos of firehoses being used to wash away the fallout remains. Remember that most fallout is very fine dust and can be washed away. Once it's gone the area is "relatively safe". The most harmfull radio isotopes have short half lives but there is always a small amount of residuals.

It is also worth noting that the Trinity blast area was also cleaned up after the test. Most of the topsoil in that area was buried and the area resurfaced.

Here is the Google earth image with the aerial photo from the tests. Where are the four remaining islands which existed in the photo of before and after. The islands unaffected from the alleged blast?

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


You're zoomed out a little too far I think.

Also remember that it's been 50 years since the photos were taken and Ivy Mike was not the last bomb test here. So the topography may have changed. Also the cleanup effort changed some of the topography. Last of all, the Google Earth image is blurred to hide some detail. I don't know why the US Government still demands these images to be blurred, I doubt that there is any strategic info to gain from the bomb crater.

Still, you can pick out enough detail to make a positive id of the area.

reply to post by lunarminer


Glad to help and I thank you also for your answers.

It is not that I don't trust what you are saying, but it seams to me that cleaning up fallout is not as simple as "washing it away with a hose". I'm not implying that is the only part of the process, but with fall out being the most deadly part of a nuclear attack, short of being in the direct vicinity of a blast, I would be curious as to how easily it is cleaned up.

As for the atoll, I see the pictures and can't refute the images only to say that making this crater could not only be done with a nuclear weapon.

As a diver you know the effects of explosives under water and the extreme amounts of pressure it creates. I ask you could this not also be done with simple underwater explosives. I mean they can build an island in dubai in the shape of a phallus doing "its thing".



Couldn't earth be removed in the same manner? Remember, I am saying it is an illusion. Illusions are made to fool people and with the reasons I've put forward for that illusion, blowing up some coral would not be that far fetched in order to give credence to that illusion in this case, a matter of National Security?

Thanks again lunerminer.

Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

You're zoomed out a little too far I think.

Also remember that it's been 50 years since the photos were taken and Ivy Mike was not the last bomb test here. So the topography may have changed. Also the cleanup effort changed some of the topography. Last of all, the Google Earth image is blurred to hide some detail. I don't know why the US Government still demands these images to be blurred, I doubt that there is any strategic info to gain from the bomb crater.

Still, you can pick out enough detail to make a positive id of the area.

I'm not being snide, but what other reason would they blur it out for lunerminer?

reply to post by lunarminer


I'll search around in regards to Teiter, Bogairikk and Bogon. Perhaps there is some info on what they did with these islands. They couldn't of used them for topsoil as they were directly in the path of the alleged detonation.

Thanks again for your info.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


No, I am sure that they didn't use them for topsoil, but their average level might have been so low that after scraping there may not have been anything left above sea level, so they may not have replaced the materials removed. I really don't know.

One thing that I do know is that after 50 years, wave actions, storms, other tests etc. could have removed part of the remaining islands. I think that this is extremely likely in light of the fact that they were at ground zero in a hydrogen bomb blast.

On your question about making the crater with conventional means. Well, yes and no. It is certainly possible that a hole could be dredged out by conventional means. The problem is the scale and the time in history.

If we wanted to do this today. We could bring in a dozen diving ships, put crews of divers into saturation. Then we could work around the clock, set explosives, remove material, etc.

The thing is that in the 1950's, saturation diving technology did not exist. This technology was pioneered by the US Navy, in the late 60's, early 70's, and then was transfered to industry in the mid-70's.

The hole would then require hundreds of diving ships, thousands of divers, and years of diving, using state of the art diving techniques of the 1950's. It would have required thousands of divers, more than the entire US Navy diving contingent could provide. So, there would be plenty of witnesses that the hole was dug out. It would also take years to do. The depth of 175 feet was barely reachable using mixed gas technology of the 1950's.

My US Navy Dive Manual from the 1980's shows that a diver would have a max bottom time of 4 hours at 175 feet and the decompression would take 171 minutes. These are the safety limits. Since it takes many months to train a mixed gas diver, the Navy would want to stay within the safety limits on a job of this scale. Each mixed gas diver could make one dive every 24 hours, again the safety limits.

So, lets say it takes 1,000,000 man-hours to complete this hole. I am guessing here and I am probably way too low. Let's say that I have 1000 divers. Then each diver would need to complete 1000 hours at depth. Our max is 4 hours at depth per day. So that is 250 days of work for each and every one. Giving each of them one day off a week and we have almost a full year of work for a dive crew of 1000 divers and about 10,000 support personel. I just don't think that they could have done this in the 1950's.

Could we quarry a hole like this with modern technology? Yes, I think that we could. I don't know what a sat diver gets paid these days. Back in the mid-80's one of our divers made 850 dollars a day, plus depth pay. So figure 1000 dollars per day. So, the cost would be in the billions just for salaries for the divers and crew. Then there is the cost of helium, boat rentals, fuel prices, food, tools, explosives. The cost would be huge, it would probably be cheaper to invent a nuke.

reply to post by lunarminer


Thank you sir for that answer. I really appreciate you taking your time to explain these things and all of that makes perfect sense.

But let me ask you another question. Surely mines and depth charges were available in the 40's and 50's being used by not only our military, but also aggressors of the time period with Japanese Subs and German U-Boats.

Here is an example of a depth charge.



Would this not do what you are talking about as far as explosives go? On the clean up side, I could understand the man hours required, but explosives wise, even if a few were required, this blast looks pretty powerful to me and this is a conventional depth charge. Couldn't the explosive power required to quarry the hole be done with this?

Thanks again, it is a pleasure talking with you.

edit for notice: They have not allowed embedding for this clip, please follow this link for the footage.
Depth charge

[edit on 11-1-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


Yes, explosives would be necessary to quarry out coral rock to the depths that we were refering to. Once the rock it broken up though it just falls back into the hole. So, it would need to be dredged out. You wouldn't need divers to do the dredging.

You would need divers to place the explosives though, plus you could use an air-dredge with divers and this would help to make the hole "look right".

Remember that all this took place in the Cold War and the real reason for faking this hole would be to make the Russians think that we had a huge hydrogen bomb. The Russians had plenty of scientists who would know what to look for. So the hole must look right.

After the hole was dug, radio isotopes of the right kind and in the right proportions would have to be seeded into the hole and the surounding areas. This would be very precise and dangerous work.

I don't know how they would fake the fallout cloud, since the mushroom cloud reached an altitude of 136,000 feet. Our best aircraft could not reach much above 50,000 feet and our best balloons topped out near 120,000, our missile technology is hardly worth mentioning.

Also, I read that the moon appeared blue for some time after the Ivy Mike test. I don't know how we could have done that, short of a nuke test.

Then there is the problem of faking the seismograph readings. During the Cold War we would announce the location, date, and time of a nuclear test after the fact. This was so the Soviets could verify that we did what we claimed by checking their seismometers. They did the same thing when they set off a nuke. The nuke tests were great international theater.

So, the whole operation would be a long and difficult process. You get to the point where Akum's razor starts to point to the reality of nukes.

Thanks for the conversation. It has been a fun thread.

Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

Yes, explosives would be necessary to quarry out coral rock to the depths that we were refering to. Once the rock it broken up though it just falls back into the hole. So, it would need to be dredged out. You wouldn't need divers to do the dredging.

You would need divers to place the explosives though, plus you could use an air-dredge with divers and this would help to make the hole "look right".

Remember that all this took place in the Cold War and the real reason for faking this hole would be to make the Russians think that we had a huge hydrogen bomb. The Russians had plenty of scientists who would know what to look for. So the hole must look right.

After the hole was dug, radio isotopes of the right kind and in the right proportions would have to be seeded into the hole and the surounding areas. This would be very precise and dangerous work.

I don't know how they would fake the fallout cloud, since the mushroom cloud reached an altitude of 136,000 feet. Our best aircraft could not reach much above 50,000 feet and our best balloons topped out near 120,000, our missile technology is hardly worth mentioning.

Also, I read that the moon appeared blue for some time after the Ivy Mike test. I don't know how we could have done that, short of a nuke test.

Then there is the problem of faking the seismograph readings. During the Cold War we would announce the location, date, and time of a nuclear test after the fact. This was so the Soviets could verify that we did what we claimed by checking their seismometers. They did the same thing when they set off a nuke. The nuke tests were great international theater.

So, the whole operation would be a long and difficult process. You get to the point where Akum's razor starts to point to the reality of nukes.

Thanks for the conversation. It has been a fun thread.

Lunarminer, you my friend, as well as Kyo and a few others have been great to talk to and I want to personally thank you for having open ears and hearts.

I must say, I agree with you, that this would have been a very time consuming and elaborate stunt to pull off. I'm not sure if you saw earlier in the thread, but I had been asked "what about the other governments nuke tests", to which I replied.

I believe that the Governments of the world, especially those in the Nuclear Club, are in it hand and hand, meaning that there is no nuclear threat of country against country only the needed appearance to those outside the club. As I had stated, I believe this was the master end plan of WW2 to stop world wars from ever occurring again, but rather to keep war (the business) on going and regional so that it may maintain order and surplus.

I simply find it to hard to believe that we have technology that can see through walls, satellites that can take a picture of the hair on my head, Laser Weapons, etc, but we can't find a guy in a cave, or that pentagon can just loose trillions of dollars unaccounted for or that we were tricked by some guys with box knives..."Just like out of a movie".

I would hope that people understand that it is not the citizens of countries that go to war, but the leaders of countries doing business behind closed doors, who then rally the citizens with propaganda in support of that war. This is usually done by fostering patriotism with well known slogans that rouse peoples emotions into frenzies and feeding them with truth mixed with lies which are predetermined behind closed doors with all of the "business partners". Just like in business, talks of a merger or sale are kept for the executives only. It is only at the last minute do low level employees find out they aren't going to have a job tomorrow. It's the same with war, only people find out they won't be alive tomorrow and that is the big difference that makes it so wrong to me.

Normal everyday people do not walk around saying, "let's go to war with another country". People are communal, not nationalistic unless called upon to feel as a bigger part of the National community and that is only accomplished with the "taking away" of things to draw people of a larger base towards the core. Nothing does this better then International Wars whose leaders shake hands at the end of the transactions, but whose citizens bury their children.

As I stated, I believe the lie was necessary to end something that was getting out of hand, and I believe it was conceived ultimately for good and not evil. The problem is, in my opinion that we have leaders who are out of control. We have a president who's answer is "so what". We have people who say, "so what" and turn as helpless others are beat down. We can't pass the buck for ever like hot potato. Someone gets burned and that is not right.

The dead give away for me on the "good" that was intended to come out of this is in the Japanese witnesses accounts, because as I had mentioned, none of them have animosity towards the united states, but rather the horror of man kinds own "self destructive power". I read not one account from a mother that lost her child who hates America, or one account from the doctors who had to patch up these patients, not one hates America. I would love to believe their hearts are that big, but know that it is not true. You loose your whole family and I promise, it isn't man kinds fault, it's the M.F. who shot your child and they are going to pay with their life. That was Americas attitude with Pearl Harbor (still no ones answered my question about how the Headquarters for the Northern Pacific fleet missed that coming). See Manzanar Japanese Interment Camp to find out how we treated our own citizens.

I went to Vietnam with my father who is a vet, and while the people were awesome to us, some wanted to kill us, although most did not and were stoked to see us. The little girls wanted to touch our blond hair and hug us and followed us through every village we went through like movie stars or something. It really made me feel very weird, but like I said, some of the older Vietnamese literally threw rocks at us while the older women cried shouting in Vietnamese for us to leave.

Not one of those testimonies decries America, but Man kind. Occam's razor says, nope.

I really have enjoyed this thread and although I continue my stance, I personally will continue studying this subject after this thread winds down because, as bono sings, "I still haven't found what I'm looking for". I'll study till I find it is true or absolutely false, but as for now I thank you for giving me the space for my opinion and as I said, I have nothing but respect for all of yours pro or con.

Thanks again friends,

ltru
Peace

Well it's good to know some can still say Civil. It's amazing that people like you, LTRU, and myself can disagree so vehemently and remain on a friendly basis. I only wish sometimes others could do that. See I am in a weird position myself. I am in the Air Force and I am in to stay but the strange factor is I am a pacifist. Rather funny job for a pacifist, being a nuke specialist, but hey I guess we all have our quirks. I wanted to learn about something that fascinated me. Now I work and slave all day cooking for our troops. Want to know what's really a grand laugh? I get yelled at more in the kitchen than I ever did in the missile field.

Think about this...

"My eggs are too cold" vs "I didn't get that warhead fixed in time"

I guess it's true that a man's heart is in his stomache somewhere. Oh well. I of course will always believe that they exist. I have seen all the proof I need to so I am jus fine in that realm. I will never begrudge you thinking otherwise. At least you made real arguments here. Some did not

Anyway...I will take a look in here later as I am sure it wil continue to sputter on a little bit.

-Kyo

reply to post by KyoZero


Kyo, whatever you're doing will be good, be it serving your brothers and sisters or leading them...of that I am confident.

My heart felt thanks to you and I look forward to seeing your name in any thread I may happen into because, I know no matter what it is about or wither we agree or disagree, I have a humble friend. Blessings to you and yours.

Sincerely, ltru

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by eyecatching
Also, unfortunately, the measurement does not deteriorate with time exposure. As fallout takes 100's or thousands of years to dissipate totally. And, as recourse, although the gov't and military would have it known that they are capable of many outrageous things, including fallacies, nuclear bombs are not one of them.

As you have said, fallout takes "100's or Thousands of years to dissipate totally".

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, please explain how these places are safe to live with thriving populations of 1 million plus people in modern times only 64 years after alleged fallout has taken place. I've asked this question many times here, with not one answer. Surely one of the experts here could answer this question.

Thank you

Unfortunately, it's not safe. And, the Japanese Gov't has been condescended several times for allowing citizens to live there. The accusations range from studying fallout effects on civilians, to greedy land developers who are uncaring. They tend not to allow accurate measurements of the radiation, via equipment; but incidence is high for sterility, malignant cancers, and goiter. And, iodized salt does not save you, as our gov't likes to project.

The testing grounds in the Nevada Desert are closed to the public for what they state as: "Obvious Health Reasons..."

So, there's your answer...it's not good practice.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by eyecatching
As an alternative approach to allay your false-set securities, look into Medicinal Nuclear Medication treatments. Nucleotides, many forms of picturing of internal makeup, and chemotherapies rely upon nuclear manipulation of treatment forms. Involving the principle of manipulation of the atom.
These things are real, and if you study the process, you will see a more violent release is possible: Nuclear Detonation.

I've been exposed in my own meanderings to countless forms of bombardment by nuclear happenings. Involving many, many varying forms of isotopes most don't even know are possible. With the subject matter not __so__ closed, you may derive your own accounts.

Chemo is the prefix of words having to do with chemical manipulation, not nuclear. In short, alkaloids dry out the cells that have free radicals growing in them, thus killing not only the targeted cell, but all those around it as well, which is what causes hair loss of cancer patients. Perhaps you were thinking of Radiation therapy such as "x-ray".

I hope you were paid well or are recovering from any malformed cancer you were being treated for in any case.

Chemotherapy, in its most general sense, refers to treatment of disease by chemicals[1] that kill cells, specifically those of micro-organisms or cancer. In popular usage, it will usually refer to antineoplastic drugs used to treat cancer or the combination of these drugs into a cytotoxic standardized treatment regimen as opposed to a targeted therapy.

Peace

Chemo- is a grab term, due to administration. It is certainly radioactive. With the hair falling out as an obvious indicator of low-dose, controlled radiation poisoning.




[edit on 12-1-2009 by eyecatching]

[edit on 12-1-2009 by eyecatching]

And, for the general sake of argument, chemicals may certainly be irradiated with radiation as any substance can. And, therefore, become radioactive. An energetic state is obtained, beyond the norms.

reply to post by Kyo Zero


Koyo Zero,
Chuckling here to your tales of people grumbling about food. I was always glad to have something to eat..either out in the field or back at base. I never grumbled about it. I reckon times have changed.

Since I came to work at this shipyard...I recall building submarines and in the torpedo rooms of the early 688 class boats there was a special lead shield installed in the warhead area. A safety pin would be pulled and the shielding plate dropped down from its storage position. This was on the outboard storage racks...outboard of the torpedo tubes on all four racks...all four torpedo tubes. This feature was later deleted from the construction. This shielding was also used on the last of the 637 class submarines as well. I was told it was for a torpedo system called Subroc.

In later years when I went on to work boomer type submarines with the large ICBM missile tubes we would be tasked with riding a Bosun's Chair down into the Missile tubes suspended on the end of a crane. The first of the people to ride the chair down into the Missile tubes were the radiation techs. THey would take readings all up and down the missile tubes and then record these readings on paper..a map of the missile tube itself.
Now today they no longer use the bosun's chair...there is a lift rig/platform mounted on top of each missile tube and a winch which lowers the whole lift rig up and down each tube. But still, someone goes down into teach missile tube and takes readings and maps these readings in each tube. Readings are periodically monitored in each missile tube and the maps upgraded.
This is also done in the nuclear reactor...maps kept of the radiation/contamination readings and recorded on a map...daily in a reactor until the reactor doors are closed and locked. A standard procedure is followed by knowing ahead of time how the reactor plant is mapped for highest and lowest readings..thus one knows where to be aware and how to reduce ones exposure levels. Even how to transit..to and fro certain jobs.

You do not build a submarine or an aircraft carrier with special provisions for something which does not exist..and expend such huge amounts of moneys to do so...for a bluff.

The point is here that this substance exists...even in tell tale traces in missile tubes which have not been fired. It obviously exists in and around reactors.

The 155mm Howitzer is capable of firing a tactical nuclear projectile. Special handpicked teams are assigned to train on these guns. They will take a mock up warhead and their gun off to a specially designated area and practice the handling, loading, and firing procedures. This potential was also available in larger cannons of earlier days but these arms are no longer being used.
While I was not on one of these special gun teams ..I remember staying behind on our gun while watching as this special team went off towing their howitzer and mock up weapon crate to the special site for training.

Radioactive contamination can indeed be cleaned up. A Lot of this potential depends on how porous the material is which needs cleaning up or decontaminating. Obviously the more porous the material the more difficult it is to clean up.
I have myself worked in glove bags and done such decontaminating of nuclear contaminated items used in a reactor. Some of them very highly contaminated. It takes time and patience...strict procedures ..but it can be done. However..if an item is porous one can only decontaminate so far. Radiation technicians are well aware of this phenomenon...porous materials. Such materials are handled differently from materials which can be more readily decontaminated.
This is the reason the surface dirt was bulldozed down so many feet deep and then burried in the manner it was. Porosity. I assume the bulldozers and other tools were buried as well.

The problem from a geopolitical standpoint with the proliferation of nuclear weapons...letthereaderunderstand ...is that the wars can no longer be controlled. THe attempt for many years has been controlled war. It may not seem so but this is the plan. To many wild cards having nuclear weapons and the wars can no longer be efficiently planned and controlled for long term profit. Small wars have been the order of the day since WW2...brush wars so to speak.

My concern nowadays is that someone seems want to have a WW3. The tell tales for me is the changing economies of many nations. Suggest that some of you find out what is happening to precious metals. I don't mean gold and silver etc though they are indeed precious metals. I do however refer to copper, brass, tin, Nickel, steel...lead..chromium, et al. Also what is happening to nitrate prices. How about rubber?? I am talking about prescious material used in making war.
The telltales speak to me that these materials have been sneaking up in value over the last five years.

By the way...my aunts, uncles and cousins told me years ago..that they witnessed the whole sky light up to the south of them on the Big Island of Hawaii...in the 1960s when there was an above ground test of a Hydrogen
Bomb on a place called Christmas Island. THey told me that as the sun was going down below the horizon ...the whole sky lit up to the south and west of them. I don't know how far Christmas Island is from the Big Island of Hawaii..but it is a substantial distance. Somehow I don't think conventional explosives can do this from so far away...create such light.

I don't believe the later below ground tests out west in Nevada or wherever they were conducted were specifically for developing yields. It is my belief that they were developing and updating the triggering devices and methods...proving them out. Yields ..for the type of materials used and the designs available has not been the problem. The triggering/safety devices have been the problem. How to make these triggers..safe, reliable, and foolproof.

For some of you interested in this type of informations...and vendors in the business..I suggest a book by a fellow named Howard Morland titled

"The Secret that Exploded."

I am certain that this book is somewhat outdated by new designs and computer engineering...but the basics are there on how a Hydrogen device is constructed along with the names of some of the vendors involved in the business at the time of publishing sometime back in the early 1980s.
As I recall the history the government went to the US Supreme Court to stop the publishing of this book and the Supreme Court said..publish it.
I think it was similar to what happened with that student before Howard Morland who wrote a paper on how an Atomic Bomb was made.

As I recall..the basics of the outline in Howard's book a Hydrogen Bomb is a Hydrogen enhanced Atomic Bomb. A certain number of Hydrogen Atoms are allowed to enter the nuclear material area...just nanoseconds before the other contaminates...thus enhancing the explosion or reaction. Hydrogen being one of the most powerful of the atoms. Regulating how many hydrogen atoms for a given amount of fissionable material...determines the yield. In othewords with proper design the yield can be dialed up or down for a given amount of fissionable material by regulating the hydrogen molecule enhancement. This feature was called "Dial a yield."

Nevertheless..it made for some very interesting reading and worth your time for those of you who do not think this stuff exists.

I believe it was also this book which was the first description I ever read of how much difficulty the early designers and engineers had in coming up with fissionable material in the Manhattan project. Huge obstacles to overcome in the early days...right down to designing the very tools with which to do the work on this project. It made for some fascinating reading of these difficulties to be overcome.
This was also the first reading I had ever done as to what was the real reason for the huge dam projects out in the area of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Once again..you don't do such a huge expense and degree of diffucilty for a bluff. Though it may have been a huge gamble right up to the time of the final proof... out at the Trinity test site in New Mexico...they were definitely not bluffing.

Just some added informations for the readers here.

Thanks,
Orangetom



[edit on 12-1-2009 by orangetom1999]

reply to post by KyoZero


You said, "I get yelled at more in the kitchen than I ever did in the missile field."

There is a reason for that. Most people do not want to upset a guy who is up to his armpits in a nuclear missile.

A guy that is up to his armpits in breakfast orders, well what's the worst that can happen?

reply to post by lunarminer



LOL LOL LOL...not me..I'd rather have chow. I dont care that much about the missle...except that it not fall into the wrong hands. Chow is more important to me than the missle. I don't piss off the people who prepare my chow. Not smart!!

I'd rather have chow than all the BS in the world.

I've been out in the field/scrub enough times to know that a hot meal is a great relief...a wonderful change of pace. Amazing what a hot meal can do for ones mind and soul when one has been without for awhile. A hot bath/shower too. I reckon I was brought up to be grateful for anything I can get. I never thought I was entitled. That is what really pissed me off about those folks in New Orleans turning thier noses up at MRE meals when they had little or nothing themselves after the hurricane some years back.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I can spit in there food? :-p

I would never...

Anyway...yeah I suppose they cared about my stress level in the nuke field -rolls eyes-

Believe me my level was up...but I still adored my old job

-Kyo

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

Ah, I see that you failed to do step two, put in "Ivy Mike", then you will see the blast crater made by the hydrogen bomb in the atoll.

You really must learn to follow directions.

The other question that follows is this. Why no bomb craters at Hiroshima or Nagasaki? If the bomb was half of IvyMike it should of left a crater half the size, which if it were real, should of left a crater a 1/2 mile in diameter. Where are the craters? Again, why are these places inhabitable?

[edit on 11-1-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]

Here's why there was no bomb craters using Hiroshima as an example

The bomb was armed in flight 31,000ft (9600m) above the city, then dropped at approximately 8:15 a.m. (JST). The detonation happened at an altitude of 1980ft (580m).

So the bomb did not hit the ground and explode, it exploded above the ground.