This report investigates the effects of nuclear explosions had to our eco system and our Oceans. It mainly focuses on the Bikini Atoll’s which is where the second, Test Abel and third Test Baker were conducted, the first nuclear test being The Gadget at White Sands New Mexico in 1945 before Fat Man and Little Boy were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Thought this report seems comprehensive I walk away unsatisfied with the feeling that it was absolutely white washed.
Oppenheimer speaks at UCLA May 1964
These are transcripts from The United States Atomic Energy Commission Personnel Board In The Matter Of J. Robert Oppenheimer April 1954
An insightful look at how media, including national news, misrepresents women and causes political efficacy. Interviews with great women like Hilary Clinton, Katie Couric, Geena Davis and many professional and educated women in media, the press, film, politics and educational fields. Brought tears to my eyes more than once.
I give this 5 plus stars
It is available on Netflix
This is a great look at the most progressive college campus during the radical sixties. Interviews with actual protesters who had a hand in the great political rallies that led to the draft protests, the Vietnam War protests, Womens Rights movements and Civil Rights……plus much much more.
I give it 5 stars.
It is available on Netflix
The Eleven Lessons of Robert Macnamara is a tell all from the man himself about his years as Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War, The Cuban Missile Crisis and beyond. You see a man who bares his soul for reckoning, who admits to committing crimes against humanity but offers no regrets. It is an eye opening look into the minds of the men who almost engaged America in Nuclear War, the closest we ever came to it becoming a reality was under Macnamara’s watch.
I give this documentary 5 stars.
It is available on You Tube.
Let me start by stating the obvious, I am a non-believer. But……what if god didn’t forsake Jesus but Jesus actually forsake god by breaking his commandments and preaching against the words and commandments given to Moses by god? From the get go Jesus comes out saying the way to heaven is through him, that we are to obey him as we obey god. Christians call him the Lord. Now, given the fact that the first two commandments, and to theologians the most important ones, clearly state we are not to worship anyone or anything but god. There you go. Was not Jesus blatantly and defiantly breaking these commandments?
In the New Testament Jesus says that Moses went easy on the Israelites because he understood their sinful nature. Jesus says that if you lust at another mans wife even just with your eyes if you notice her beauty then you have committed adultery. He says that god has sent him to tell them that they need to get to him by way of his son, not the way Moses had told them. He basically throws out Moses’ credentials and says he didn’t do what god told him to do.
God had already commanded the deaths of many people for crimes not much worse than those that Jesus commits. What if god told the leaders of the Jewish Temples to accuse Jesus, what if he told Pontius Pilot to crucify Jesus, what if at the very least he let it happen as punishment for Jesus defying god?
Just a thought.
There is a lot of hoopla over how progressive the current Pope is. But is he really? Well if you want to call finding new ways for the Catholic Church to take credit for years of scientific advancement and for Darwin’s revolutionary discoveries and observations and that this Pope is the most gracious and loving father because he can love all god’s children even homosexuals then I would have to say that this Pope is really good at saying the right words and phrases that get the people to think he is accepting homosexuals in the church and that he is scientific and open-minded.
Let me start with he ‘acceptance’ of homosexuals in the church and in the clergy. He is not saying that Christians shouldn’t have problems with homosexuals, he saying Christians can, by getting them in the church doors, stop homosexuals from having sex ergo stop them from sinning. By accepting gay men into the clergy they have to take a vow of celibacy. Problem solved. By accepting gay men into the congregation where abstinence until marriage is the rule and where marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman….well here again problem solved.
Now lets talk about what I consider to be even more underhanded and sneaky than tricking homosexuals into becoming Catholic; Pope Francis acknowledging that Darwin’s theory of evolution and the big bang theory are real. Now the big bang theory is pretty easy for Christians to hijack, all they have to do is say that god caused the big bang which still gives him credit for the creation of the universe. But trying to steal Darwin’s theory will be more difficult, as least to anyone with any amount of intelligence. This Pope very clearly does not have an understanding of Darwin’s theory, and most Christians don’t either. For the Pope to say Darwin was right he is saying that the Bible is wrong. Does anyone really believe that is what is doing? If it is does anyone really think the church will let him get away with this? Darwin says we all evolved from a single-celled organism. The Bible says god created man whole, walking upright and that he made woman from the rib of the man. Right there this whole acceptance of evolution fails. How exactly is the Pope saying humans have evolved if we physically are the same as we were when we were created? Even if he is only conceding that we have intellectually evolved how much can we have evolved if we were created with an understanding of how life began (biblically), with an understanding of language, with the knowledge of all living species on earth and what we could and could not eat, which plants and trees we could eat from, how to grow crops, how to live in a society etc.
Pope Francis needs to actually read ‘The Descent of Man’, ‘On Natural Selection’ and ‘On The Origin of Species’. Clearly he has not. Well somewhere someone in the Church had to of read ‘On Natural Selection’ because they used it to enforce anti-antisemitism and support Hitler’s perverse us of it for his eugenics experiments.
Bottom line is this, once again the lack of education that has kept Christians faithful has paid off for the church once again. If there is one thing the church is supreme for it is keeping its followers in the dark.
Some atheists, secular and non-believers struggle with the dilemma of whether or not to read or expose their children to the bible. I was raised by an atheist father and non church attending Methodist mother who took us to Sunday school so we could learn about the bible to help us one day decide for ourselves on matters of religion. (I wasn’t baptized). However, as much as I am thankful for my awesome parents for their decision to raise me that way, I did learn about the bible as being holy and to be god’s words. Because children of religious people are raised that the bible is the sacred undisputed word of god when they grow up they very often fear doubting this book even if their common sense tells them to. I raised my kids in a secular atmosphere and read the bible to them often and as a book to be taken seriously while pointing out it’s contradictions and flaws, most of which they saw for themselves and didn’t really need me to show it to them. I am now a grandmother of boys being raised without religion in secular homes. I have decided that I am going to read the bible to them also but not in the same way as I did my own kids. I am going to read it to them as fairy tales just like Mother Goose, The Brother’s Grimm or Aesop’s Fables. I think if they are raised hearing biblical stories as fairy tales they will never consider taking the bible seriously! Biblical stories are as silly and fantastical as fairy tales and mythological stories so why not?
An inspirational man…
Originally posted on digression prose:
I hear that October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I’m glad the old white men who decide these things set aside a month to think about it, so that we don’t have to ALL the time.
Being a dude myself, I don’t really know the best way to approach the conversation, so I’ll tell a story. I was around 10 or 11, or 12 or 13 – I don’t exactly know why, but almost every memory from my childhood is blurred together and I always say I was 12.
Anyhow, my dad had fallen on tough times, he was on crack, and we had a lot of crack heads in our house, including this woman Elaine and her four kids. There were two younger boys, I don’t remember their names. There was a daughter, Debra, who was the same age as me. Then also she had a son Chris who was…
View original 1,146 more words
the Let me start off by stating that Los Alamos is my hometown, it’s where I grew up, it’s where my family legacy is and I have spent many years diligently researching its history and that of its founder J. Robert Oppenheimer. I moved there when I was six years old in 1967 well after the Manhattan Project and Project Y but I have more than several social media friends who grew up there during this time and have personal knowledge of what it was like to live there which I do not doubt nor question. That being said let me first say that I am not only disappointed but disgusted and angered with this television series. Now before anyone responds by commenting that this show is not supposed to be factual which it clearly advertises let me say this, then they should not use the name Los Alamos, PO Box 1663, The Manhattan Project or J. Robert Oppenheimer. They did state in their trailer of the show that the characters would be based on a combination of actual people and actual events however. But if this is supposed to be fictional then they should not mention Hitler or Japan or anything to do with actual events of World War II. On a side note why do they bother to use fictional names of all the other scientists working on the bomb if they use Oppenheimer’s. They also use the real names of The Gadget and Thin Man (which was the original name of the Fat Man bomb). If they went to the trouble of researching deep enough to know about Thin Man they could have done better elsewhere. They place the show in Los Alamos New Mexico and refer to the only known name of the town as the factual name of PO Box 1663. This makes no sense but on to more important issues. Because the do refer to the whole thing as The Manhattan Project and because they do have Oppenheimer as the head of it there is enough reference to factual events and persons that those that do not know the history of Los Alamos and the bombs are going to associate these non factual people and events with real ones and most will assume that this show at least loosely represents the truth when in fact the before mentioned names are the only facts and truth of the show.
I am going to specify events from the show and then present what really happened or what never did happen along with things that I don’t believe would have happened based on my knowledge of Los Alamos. I also must point out why I feel so strongly about certain misrepresentations.
1. – This personally the biggest offense of all, admittedly because I have such a fondness and a soft spot for the man us locals lovingly call Oppie. The character of Oppenheimer is presented as aloof and non approachable not to mention anything but hands on which is far from the truth. Oppie though notoriously arrogant and short of patience prior to his assignment as head of the Manhattan Project was a different man when he took his position there. He was known to be not only approachable by his fellow scientists but by their wives and children. He was known to officiate at weddings and host endless parties at Fuller Lodge where he was always surrounded by admiring females and friends who loved him for his charm, his wit and his undeniable charisma. He was known to have an open door policy for his fellow scientists absolutely practiced the philosophy that knowledge should be shared and he encouraged the asking of and answering of questions from everybody within the scientific community. What angers me about his portrayal is that one of Oppies greatest legacies was his ability to assemble a group of the greatest scientific minds from around the world and create a highly collaborative group that had a common goal that was unprecedented and never before or since accomplished. This leads me to number two…
2. – The scientists in the show are constantly fighting, back stabbing, resentful and just plain nasty towards each other. It was the very fact that the real scientists that were worked on the bombs worked so well together that this project came to be completed so smoothly and so quickly. Now, the fighting and competition in the show is mainly between two groups who are competing with each other to have their design for a plutonium bomb become The Gadget and then be chosen to work on Thin Man’. These two groups are also fighting over the plutonium that they needed to build these bombs. One of my biggest points of contention to do with the history of building the bomb or dropping the bomb is the phrase ‘the bomb’. More often than not it is only Hiroshima that is remembered and more often than not is the belief that it was Fat Man was dropped there when the fact is there were three bombs that were successfully built; The Gadget, Fat Man and Little Boy (Thin Man was abandoned due to contaminated plutonium and redesigned as Little Boy using Uranium). The Gadget was the first atomic bomb ever used when tested in White Sands New Mexico at what is now known as Trinity Site and Little Boy was the first atomic bomb ever used in war when it was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th 1945. Fat Man was the plutonium bomb and was dropped on the city of Nagasaki on August 9th 1945, 3 days after Little Boy. Now I don’t have any proof or even any documentation to prove this but I also have never read or heard that there was such fierce competition between teams of scientists of the Manhattan project let alone petty bickering and backstabbing.
3. – I highly doubt any Native American would have traded peyote for sanitary napkins, peyote is sacred to them.
4. – In episode 3 they had the wives working the switchboards and monitoring phone calls between residents to listen for ‘flagged’ words of phrases that they were to report to the powers that be if they heard them. I seriously doubt that surveillance jobs of phone conversations for protection of national security would have been entrusted to any civilians.
. – In episode 2 the Chinese American spy was shot by a Private at the gates of Los Alamos when trying to leave with classified documents. First I don’t believe that a Private would ever have been posted at the entrance gates. This was a town that even the President who though was aware of the project did not know of its location and nobody in his administration not even the vice president knew it existed. Everyone I mean everyone had to have a badge and security clearance to enter those gates and I highly doubt the responsibility of this would be given to a Private. Secondly I am pretty sure that once this supposed spy was accused of being a spy he never would have been left to leave at the very least without so much as a vehicle search. The character took a guards gun and escaped without so much as a fire alarm going off? Wouldn’t have happened I think it’s a pretty safe bet that the military would have had him down by the time he got to his room, got the documents he was taking, got into his car and then sat there and argued with the MP’s at the gate to let him leave. Now more importantly, it is my opinion that this character on a scientist named Wen Ho Lee, I say this because there is no record of any Chinese scientists ever working on the Manhattan Project or of being accused let alone convicted of being a spy except Lee who worked at Los Alamos National Laboratories in the 90’s and was accused of espionage. He was however only convicted of one count of misusing classified documents and is still alive today. Those who may know of this man and his actions but not the details could easily confuse fact from fiction.
This show is simply put written by revisionist historians who, though their intent may not be to misinform are doing exactly that about a part of history that should never never never be anything but learned from.
As much as I love Quentin Tarantino I have major issues with this film. I will start with the end. SPOILER ALERT! Hitler is not murdered by a Jewish woman who traps him in a movie theater that she sets on fire resulting in burning Hitler to death.
There are certain historical events that no one should take artistic license with and anything to do with Hitler is no exception. I admittedly have issues with any filmmaker who rewrites history because in this day and age too many younger people, well people in general are lazy when it comes to learning things. In this I want information yesterday age movies and videos are often times the only source of historical information they will learn. Even many teachers use media as a teaching aid and would probably do so more if there were enough film that was historically accurate.
On with this film. There is no hint whatsoever of the crimes against humanity Hitler is guilty of, only one scene shows a farmer hiding a family under his living room floor who get gunned down save one when found by an SS officer. The survivor goes on to inherit a movie theater that you guessed it she uses to cook Adolph. I personally think it very much makes the Jews look like evil people. I think this is very dangerous, not just wrong but dangerous. It is brilliant as a new age propaganda film that Hitler would be proud of to tell you the truth.
I do not recommend this film.
This is an in depth documentary that interviews and features the crew of the Enola Gay as well as the crews of the other 2 planes that flew with her when she dropped the Little Boy on the city of Hiroshima including a candid interview with Kernel Tibbits the pilot of the Enola Gay. This film is a combination of reinactments and actual footage. Unfortunately unless you know what people like J. Robert Oppenheimer, General Leslie Groves or other people featured you have to rely on being able to tell the difference between the two by the film and photography quality. Usually interviews with real people had subtitles with names and what they did. There is a lot of accurate history represented going back to The Gadget test at Trinity to details about Tinian Island as well as events from Pearl Harbor and the war before the bomb. There is definitely a subtle attempt to justify the bombs use on these cities with the inclusion of the number and type of military troops there with emphasis on insisting the city was a military target. Interviews with Japanese soldiers and pilots along with the gut wrenching stories from survivors gives you a rare look at the other side. There is in depth coverage on Stalin and Truman and how the United States handled the medical relief for the victims. I highly recommend this 5 star documentary.
This excellent look at the Secretary of Defense Robert S McNamara is not about him it is from him. In his own words he reveals the very personal side of his time spent as the Secretary of Defense during the Cold War and the Viet Nam War. I learned quite a few things from it. I give it 5 Stars. It is available on You Tube.
Written and Directed by Kirby Dick and released in 2012 this disturbing documentary interviews real victims of rape in the military. These stories reveal the injustice and the corruption of the way rape is handled or rather not handled in the military. I highly recommend this documentary and give it 5 stars.