The Red Mercury Saga: Russians Say Lithium-6 Was Red Mercur


GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
May 2, 2019

OK… I had to do at least one “fun” blog this week, and T.M. sent this article along, and I couldn’t resist. And it’s appropriate that the article is based on a report from those always-byzantine-never-to-be-trusted-Russians and their evil-super-genius-criminal-mastermind-martial-arts-expert-who-is-behind-all-conspiracies-of-all-the-ages Dr. Fu Manchu Vladimir Putin.

So what has Mr. Putin and his evil minions and lackeys been up to lately? Why, they now claim that all that red mercury scare that was the favored Nuclear Nightmare of the 1990s, and which occasionally resurfaces in a variety of contexts (most recently as the “culprit” behind those strange bridge fires in Atlanta a few years ago) was really simply a “code” for Lithium-6. But, as you might imagine, there’s a bit more to this story than meets the eye. Here’s the article, which, you’ll note, is really the abstract to an article:

‘Red Mercury’ is Lithium-6, Russian Weaponsmiths Say

And here’s the problematical part:

The name ‘red mercury’ is a code word used in the USSR nuclear weapons program since the 1950s to describe enriched lithium-6.

Well, that’s not really the only problematical part. There’s also this:

Lithium-6 has two nuclear weapons uses: as a reactor target for production of tritium, and in the form of lithium-6 deuteride as a thermonuclear weapon material. The most common production process uses large amounts of mercury as chemical agents. The code name originated because mercuric impurities contaminate the lithium- 6 during production, giving it a red color. ‘Red mercury’ has been identified by many European media reports as ‘any of several simple mercuric compounds and tinctures offered for sale by Russian and European agents,’ but none of these had any nuclear value. The uses for lithium-6 are consistent with claims about the uses of ‘red mercury.’ The USSR built a large complex in the early days of their nuclear weapon program to produce and stockpile lithium- 6. Some was also supplied to China in the 1950s. Russian and Western officials have both stated that no lithium-6 from Russian or Chinese inventories has been diverted since the disintegration of the USSR. (Emphasis added)

Well, what’s so problematical about that? To answer that question, we’ll have to take a short trip around Harvey’s Barn. In 2009 I published my book The Nazi International, in which I review the post-World War Two nuclear fusion research of Dr. Ronald Richter, which he was ostensibly conducting for Argentinian dictator Juan Peron. In 1951, Peron gave a press conference where he introduced Dr. Richter, and then made the extraordinary claim that Argentina had discovered the secret to the hydrogen bomb. The world’s press denounced Richter as a fraud, and so vociferous was the press response that Peron appointed a young Argentine nuclear physicist, Dr. Jose Balseiro, to head a commission to investigate Richter’s claims. Richter was indeed claiming to do the impossible – at least, by the lights at the time. He was claiming to obtain fusion reactions in a compound of lithium-6 (the rest of the compound was unspecified, but may have involved mercury) under extreme rotation and stress, and at temperatures far below that the standard thermonuclear chemistry of the period thought possible. In effect, Richter was making cold fusion claims some decades before Pons and Fleischman would do so.

Dr. Balseiro filed his report, basically pointing all this out, Richter was denounced as a fraud and placed under house arrest by Peron, and that was that.

Until the USA’s infamous Castle-Bravo h-bomb test, which ran away to a reaction of about 15 megatons’s yield, after a pre-detonation calculation of “only” 7-8 megatons. As I pointed out in The Nazi International, suddenly people in the USA became interested – very secretly interested – in Richter and his work again, and the US Air Force dispatched people to interview him. Meanwhile, the “cover story” of Castle Bravo was put out: the American thermonuclear bomb engineers had not factored in that the lithium-6 would burn in the reaction.

Woops.

Except, that Richter had made this prior claim, and now, the Russians are also implying that they too knew lithium-6 would burn in a thermonuclear reaction as early as the 1950s. Which means either the American story about Castle Bravo’s  engineers being incompetent is probably yet another one of those narratives that has to be questioned, because it implies they fully knew and concocted a nonsensical explanation for it. And now we’re learning that mercury was used as a chemical agent in some unknown process involving the lithium-6.

It’s the presence of Richter in this mix that makes me wonder, once again, if there is not some truth in the red mercury legend, particularly in this current incarnation; it makes me wonder if some mercury “salted” with lithium-6-deuteride and then put into plasma form might not, in fact, under the right conditions, do what was always claimed for “red mercury”: detonate with enormous “quasi-nuclear” force.

Finally, most importantly, if this latest admission from Russia is to be believed, then it means one very important thing: the substance called “red mercury” was, and is, real.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com

_______________________________________________
About The Author:

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Of The Qult & That Strangeness In That Wikileaks Dump Of…


GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
April 23, 2019

So many people sent some version of this story last week that it made it almost immediately into my “finals folder” of stories to blog about. So thank you to all of you, once again, who brought it to my attention, and another “generic thank you” to all of you who take the time to send articles. Anyway, this story is about that little bit of strangeness that made it into the Wikileaks dump which occurred around the time frame of the arrest of Julian Assange. But before we get to that, first a little caveat lector; most regular readers here already know, that during my years of writing, talking, and blogging about “strange stuff” that  I’ve not commented much – if at all – about Wikileaks or Julian Assange. When Assange and Wikileaks first appeared, it was not a subject that was very much on my radar, and hence, to this day, I do not know much about Assange nor his operation. At the time he first appeared, I expressed some skepticism as to how it all worked, including who his sources were. I still have that skepticism. That said, I am even more skeptical and cynical about the nasty precedent and implications that his arrest portends. In some respects, I suppose, what bothered me about Assange was what bothers me about the Q-cult, or Qult as my colleague Bernard Grover calls it: it struck me as contributing to that malaise of our age, the desire to be “on the inside” and “in the know,” not that that was Mr. Assange’s goal, but that seems to be one implication. Granted, Assange and Wikileaks did not concoct a labyrinth of bread crumbs for the faithful acolytes to decode and follow nor did Assange assert cryptic claims to a kind of infallibility ex cathedra et ex consensu ecclesiae Qque. That is to say, Assange at least did not, so far as we know, construct a psyop nor was he part of one. That makes his arrest – at least to me personally – very troubling.

What I find even more troubling is the possibility that the Qult has been carefully nurtured for the past couple of years, almost as if some sort of “replacement” was being prepared for the day that Mr. Assange was taken down.

Which makes the strange little document in the last Wikileaks dump, and that has been making the rounds on the Internet, even more intriguing:

Wikileaks Document Exposes a “Secret US Base on the Moon

Taking this document (and the accompanying article) as authentic for the sake of argument, we’re presented with a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, if one views the document itself, and then reads the above-linked accompanying article, one is struck by the fact that the original document states that the report that the Soviet Union destroyed a secret US moonbase was unclassified. Quite frankly, when I read the accompanying article and saw the document itself, it struck me that the headline read like one would expect to find on The National Enquirer, accompanying yet another article headlined Two-Headed Elvis Seen in Hotel Bar in Mindinao. So my first difficulty here is not only the Enquirerlike headline, but the fact that the whole thing is unclassified ab initio. Without the benefit of the whole document and possessing only its summary, we’re left with not much other than the possibility that we might be looking at a summary of a newspaper article that might have appeared in some foreign media.

A second possibility here is that we might be looking at a bit of deliberate and intentional “meme-planting.” After all, it would be a relatively easy thing to plant false documents for someone (like Assange) to “find” and disseminate.

But strangely enough, it took a junior Senator from Wisconsin to point out the possibility that perhaps one way to keep a “super secret” super secret is to downgrade the classification from “Super Secret” to “Kinda Secret but Not So Much,” that way, one doesn’t have to track the “Super Secret” document on the “Super Secret Documents Ledger”. By the same token, some times the best way to hide something is just to pull it from the public awareness, but not to classify it Super Secret, nor even Kinda Secret but Not So Much, but just to leave it unclassified and on the shelf. No one else knows about it, who doesn’t know the location on the shelf, and since it’s So So Secret, it’s above Super Secret and its ledgers; it’s So So Secret it’s not even classified.

But with all the strange photos of stuff on the Moon, including some strange things in the Chinese and more recently the Israeli pictures, the idea that the US may have had a So So Secret (i.e., unclassified) base on the moon is not so strange, and raises new questions: what kind of base – manned or unmanned – was it? Where was it? What was its mission? When did it become operational? When was it constructed? And who constructed it? Did this base have something to do with NASA’s strange L-CROSS mission in 2009, which was designed to crash into the South Pole of the Moon? Remember that one? We were all told that the impact would be visible on Earth, so spectacular would the collision be.

When it happened, it was  – at least after all the hype – a big nothing burger. Except to a handful, who were far more excited about the fact that the impact was not visible to the naked eye. What the telescopic images revealed was rather stunning, for the impact signature was not that of impacting on a solid surface, but of impacting on, and penetrating, a roof and exploding into an empty space beneath it.

And finally, to round out today’s high octane speculation, there is a bit of an odd thing in the assertion that the Soviet Union destroyed this alleged American Moonbase. On the document itself there is a space labeled TAGS< and under this heading, one reads “ARBOGAST, CEYD QUENTIN, OGEN – Operations-General, UR – Soviet Union (USSR).” Now, the way I’m reading that strange list, ARBOGAST, CEYD QUENTIN, and  OGEN” would seem to be codewords, with “ARBOGAST” perhaps being the codename for a specific project area, and CEYD QUENTIN and OGEN perhaps being specific projects within that project area. OGEN could be simply a sigil for what follows it:  “operations-General”. Then we get something very suggestive: “UR – Soviet Union (USSR).” Is UR explained by what follows it, as OGEN appears to be by “operations-general”, in which case UR becomes some sort of sub-project heading for the Soviet Union in whatever ARBOGAST represents? Perhaps. Or, even better, is UR intended – as one individual who sent this story to me speculated – to represent an ancient UR, Ur of the Chaldeas in Mesopotamia? And is the reference to the Soviet Union indicating that it has some sort of “project ARBOGAST” (whatever that may be) interest in Ur?

Who knows, but I find that whole chain and line of reasoning to be intriguing to entertain.

So, for the moment, color me skeptical, but willing to be open to the high octane speculations here if indeed we could find out more information and details about this document.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
_______________________________________________
About The Author:

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.