Read Glasstone's book. Read about the Manhattan Project. Read about the formation of the special bomber squadron. Again, think about this: it took 334 B-29s in a single raid to conduct the fire-bombing of Tokyo in Operation Meetinghouse. It took only one B-29 to destroy Hiroshima---and again to destroy Nagasaki. What kind of "non-nuclear" bomb load could one B-29 carry to produce these effects? If that could have been done with chemical weapons, we could have done it sooner and made more use of it earlier in the war. No need for a secret project that cost billions of dollars. And if the objective was to create a hoax, why would there be any secrecy?

Palmer (is that his name?) knows all about looking at anything but what really happened, because he doesn't bother to read and understand Glasstone's book (although he quotes from it). He refers to a fast-frame photo of the expanding Trinity fireball (taken in self-produced light) and says "It doesn't even look luminous. It looks like it was lit by a lamp high and to the left." He doesn't realize that is what a fireball looks like when you have slowed down the process enough and filtered it enough to keep the film from being saturated and totally exposed (all white). He worries about "where's the uranium?" and doesn't stop to think that it all drifted away as uranium oxide, part of the mushroom cloud. He has poor epistemology. Remember the old saying: Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. No retinal burns? Amazing. Do we really know why? Or is it impossible for people to walk barefoot over red-hot glowing coals? The flash-burned corpses, grease stains, and flash shadows are grisly forms of evidence that no ordinary incendiary bomb produces.

I'm sorry, but when I can read his first chapter and find three glaring stupidities, I don't have much patience or charity.