ON CELL PHONES MENU MIGHT BE LOCATED BY SELECTING A SMALL SYMBOL, SUCH AS A SMALL SQUARE WITH HORIZONTAL LINES, RATHER THAN SEPARATE MENU BUTTONS AS ON A COMPUTER SCREEN​

     ​Select a page from the menu below. Left-click the button until the page name turns magenta color. Then scroll under the buttons to find a new page.​​ 

​deanrichardkibbe.com

TOP SECRET (See also: deanrichardkibbe.net, deanrichardkibbe.biz; and, saintvibiana.com)

SUPPORT THE WORLDWIDE GENERAL STRIKE AND THE BAN ON ALL WAR...

BOYCOTT NEW CARS

​

deanrichardkibbe.com
​       Check old pages for updates and additions
Please use spell check for death threats
If you are considered a dissident and/or immune to brainwashing, and your snail mail can not get through, it is probably being blocked by
the republican/democrat nazi party united snakes government, ("The free world")​
​​It has come to my attention that the website builder I use sets supposedly non-tracking cookies of some kind, unless you set your browser to block all cookies, which I recommend.
You can delete all cookies and other data after you visit any website, which I recommend.
Files linked to buttons are stored on deanrichardkibbe.org which handles large file sizes

     If the alleged "atom bombs" were real and as explosive as they are claimed to be, they would never produce any type of cloud, except dirt ejected by concussion, especially a mushroom shaped cloud. Furthermore, in a reaction which does produce smoke, the smoke production only continues until the reaction is completed. Even the largest concussion type bombs are relatively light in mass and thus unlike the much heavier sun would expand almost instantaneously to produce equilibrium by explosion rather than slower-burning fire. The "atom bomb" is alleged to produce a "nuclear reaction" which is almost instantaneous; therefore, even if it did produce smoke, it could only produce a very short puff, which would dissipate long before it had a chance to begin forming the stem, let alone the cap of a mushroom shape cloud. Thus, it would not be a very rapid reaction at all, since in photographs, still and moving, of the "atom bomb", when the cap at the top of the mushroom is finally formed, (which I am sure even government "nuclear physicists" would agree does not finish forming instantaneously, if movies of the "atom bomb" are accepted as being projected at real time speed), smoke is still billowing out of the "atom bomb", which should be exploded and gone by then, at the same density as at the beginning of the reaction, indicating a fire rather than a more rapid explosion. The mushroom cloud is not unique; many conventional fire-smoke bombs produce a bright flash (usually red) followed by a rising column of smoke (vertically), the stem, and when it reaches its convective altitude peak it slows down at the top and the faster, hotter air underneath pushes it outward and around in a toroid to make the cap; but although it is a fire, burning slower than the more rapid combustive explosion in a conventional concussion type bomb, it is still a much faster reaction than the ten minute "atom bombs". Further, an "atom bomb" explosion is alleged to produce temperatures hotter than the sun; but the predominantly red color in the fireball indicates a much lower temperature. The mushroom cloud in "atom bomb" pictures, still and moving, are alleged to be produced by a rising fireball; if heat was not coming from the ground rather than a rising fireball there would be as much expansion in all directions, which would produce a rising expanding sphere, instead of a column of hot air and bomb smoke rising vertically from the ground to produce the stem and cap of a mushroom-shaped cloud. Further, although the "atom bomb" is alleged to produce unbelievably powerful concussion and thermal radiation effects from the previously stated fireball and a blast-shock followed by a rarefaction of lesser force, many buildings were left standing within a fraction of a mile from ground zero, according to pictures of Nagasaki and Hiroshima; testimony of "witnesses" proves nothing since it is easy to report something which did not actually happen and get some people to believe it (like the "war of the worlds" hoax). It should become obvious to someone considering these facts, that what they are actually viewing when they are shown a movie of an "atom bomb" explosion, is not a super-powerful bomb forming a gigantic mushroom shaped cloud by a mysterious instantaneous explosion, but rather a slow-motion projection of a much smaller low-potency fire-smoke bomb to make the time-space dimensions of its visible reactions appear to be of a much greater magnitude. 

     And what can truthfully be said about the famous formula: E = mc squared except that it is famous? Breaking the formula down to analyze it, it can be seen that E, which stands for the energy contained in a given mass, is valid if, and only if, the part of the equation to the right of the equal sign accurately reflects the amount of energy in a given stationary body. Since m represents the mass of a given body, it can be further stated that if the mass of a given body is multiplied  by c squared, and the product obtained accurately reflects the amount of energy in any given body having the same mass, under all conditions, then the formula can truthfully be said to be valid and correct. However, since c squared is a constant, which means it has the same value in the formula under all conditions for every given body of every mass, and thus the determining factor of the ratio, of the amount of energy in two or more given bodies to each other, is m alone, a given body of a given mass should have the exact same amount of energy as another given body having the same mass, under all stationary conditions, even if they are not made of the same material; but, a little careful thought shows that this is not possible. A pound of ice very obviously does not contain the same amount of energy as a pound of boiling water; the boiling water has a higher molecular activity and thus contains more energy. A pound of copper wire coiled up with both ends disconnected very obviously does not contain the same amount of energy as a pound of copper wire with the ends connected, in an electrical circuit, to a high voltage generator; the electrically connected wire has a higher molecular activity, especially at the electron level, and thus contains more energy. A pound of air does not, when floating freely in the atmosphere, contain the same amount of energy as a pound of air in a fully inflated car tire; the pressurized air has a higher molecular activity and thus contains more energy. If energy equalled mass times the speed of light squared,(E = mc squared), a pound of electrons would have the same energy as a pound of protons; but instead, one electron has the same electronic binding force but a much lighter mass than one proton,(which means a pound of electrons would have a much higher total electrical charge than a pound of protons), and electrons have a much higher velocity which gives them a much higher kinetic energy per pound than protons. Further, a pound of plutonium (any isotope) at absolute zero temperature would have no energy at all!

     Although this data dealing with just the m part of the formula is more than enough to melt down the entire     E = mc squared formula, further analysis shows that the c squared part of the formula is just as invalid. Because those who claim said formula is valid will admit that energy can be added by the above methods (heat, electricity, pressure, etc.), but claim it is insignificant because of the much larger figure, for energy contained in a given mass, obtained by multiplying the mass times the enormous product of c squared, 186,000 miles per second times 186,000 miles per second, the                   c squared in the formula must have a valid reason for being in the formula. In the first place, c , which is listed as the speed of light, does not consider that light velocity is not a constant value, but varies depending on the material it is traveling through. Second, if all the mass of a given body was traveling at c velocity, the kinetic energy, should, according to physics laws, equal at the very most one half the mass times c squared. However, it is usually accepted that only the electron travels anywhere near that speed; and the rest of an atom, the nucleus, makes up the bulk of the mass; therefore, only a trivial mass has a valid relationship to c in any way. The remainder of the atom, the nucleus, has a kinetic energy dependant mainly on temperature and pressure; and an electronic potential which is equal, in an electrically neutral atom, to the electronic potential of the electrons of said atom. Therefore, the velocity of the nucleus, and the mass of the electrons, are both much too low in magnitude to represent the quantity mc squared. Thus, the famous formula, in all conditions of temperature and pressure, is not only inaccurate, but totally ridiculous! 

     More important than the quantity of energy in a given mass calculated from said formula, is the validity of nuclear theory in quality; can and does it work in truth like those who have given no firsthand proof (except for pictures, still and moving, witnessed by themselves as to authenticity, complex and confusing math formulas, which prove nothing themselves, alleged experiment results, which would be too expensive and/or complicated for almost anyone except a large military industrial complex to carry out, and the testimony of persons who can use it to enable numerous united nations to enslave their own people, out of fear of total destruction by other countries, to a perpetual war-threat machine) claim that it does? The answer, as a little careful objective thought proves, is: of course not! A look at simple electronic characteristics, in relation to already proven physics laws of a nature that they can be verified by persons not having resources of the magnitude of a large military-industrial complex, can easily prove that all of the alleged "nuclear reactions" claimed are impossible, and all radioactivity is limited to electronic,(beta particle emission, also referred to as cathode radiation, or when traveling through a copper wire, electricity), and electromagnetic resultants,(radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, etc. varying in wavelength); and "nuclear reactions" claimed, which compared to electron transfer (electricity) might be termed: proticity (proton transfer), neutricity ("neutron" transfer), positricity ("positron" transfer), and alphicity ("alpha particle" transfer, or high speed wind from ionized helium gas), are all composed of the same force that makes smoke rise into a mushroom-shaped cloud from a long duration fire: hot air (figuratively speaking)! First it should be pointed out that at one time, electricity was thought to be traveling from positive to negative by Earth humans (which fact is important to remember when considering what the terms negative and positive charge refer to), and the positive charge was thought to be a surplus of electricity and the negative charge a deficiency of electricity. It is now accepted, even by the feeble minds of the Earth humans, that the negative terminal of a voltage source has an excess of electrons and the plus terminal a deficiency in electrons. From the physics formula F = ma, where F = force, m = mass, and a = acceleration, it can be seen that a = F over m; therefore, for a given force, a body with a lower mass will have a faster acceleration in comparison to a body with a larger mass in proportion to their mass ratios. From common cathode ray experiments it is seen that when there is a - charge on a cathode and a + charge on an anode, electrons always travel from negative to positive; the reason being that the mass of an electron is trivial compared to a proton, which gives it so much higher acceleration (the electron) that a proton wouldn't hardly get moving before an electron would reach it. Thus proticity (proton transfer) and neutricity (transfer of "neutrons", which are alleged to be the same mass as a proton), which are claimed to occur to neutralize imbalance of electrical charge in the nucleus, and be produced by a "cyclotron", would be impossible; since too high of positive charge would be neutralized by an incoming electron before the proton would have time to neutralize the charge by leaving the nucleus, and too high a "neutron"-proton ratio would cause an electron to be ejected from orbit, increasing the relative positive charge of the nucleus, or at most even if "neutrons" existed, form and eject an electron at the nuclear level, before the "neutron" had time to leave the nucleus. Positricity ("positron" transfer) is just as absurd, since if there were really positive electrons, the odds would be just as great for electricity to flow from anode (+) to cathode (-) as from cathode to anode. A simple cathode ray tube proves that flow is always from negative to positive. As for alphicity ("alpha particle" transfer), it is easy to see that a high speed wind of ionized helium gas could not get too far before much lighter electrons from the nearest atoms would reach it to neutralize the charge before a proton had time to leave a nucleus; it could not travel any faster and/or farther than ordinary helium gas, and a nucleus that unstable wouldn't have been formed in the first place, since the above data shows a "cyclotron" couldn't work, and natural formation by proton bombardment would be impossible. Thus actual radiation is limited to electronic and electromagnetic resultants, because in truth the electron, having equal charge electrically but much lighter mass can always win a race with a proton to reach equilibrium. The "chain reaction" alleged to produce "nuclear power" in an "atom bomb" and a "nuclear pile" is alleged to be caused by a "neutron", an alleged particle having the mass of a proton and no electrical charge, which is alleged to leave a nucleus of one atom and knock two or three more "neutrons" out of the nucleus of another atom, plus supply enough energy to overcome the electronic binding force holding the nucleus together and split the atom into two smaller atoms; all of this energy allegedly produced by the kinetic motion of the "neutron" alone. For a "neutron" to knock even one "neutron" out of another nucleus without any energy loss would be perpetual motion and thus impossible, and even more impossible to knock two or three more "neutrons" out of a nucleus, each having sufficient energy to sustain a "chain reaction", and have enough energy left over to overcome the binding energy of the nucleus and split the atom, all by the kinetic motion of the alleged "neutron". A geiger counter proves nothing except that there is an electrical charge nearby; thus, on a dry day, a person walking on a nylon carpet for 24 hours, would produce more radiation than all the "atom bombs" and "nuclear piles" ever manufactured since the beginning of time (zero)!

​GRAVITATIONAL WAVE THEORY, DETONATIVE CONVECTION AND THERMAL EXPANSION CHARACTERISTICS, LAWS OF KINETIC MOTION, AND ENERGY TRANSFER BY INTERATOMIC RADIATION, AS RELEVANT TO INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT NUCLEAR FRAUD

OR

ONE OF THE TWO MAIN REASONS WHY THEY HAVE NOT PUT ANY EXTRA CRATERS ON THE MOON