Did a nuclear blast devastate Port Chicago on July 17, 1944?

I have never heard about the blasts (2) in 1944 in port Chicago. The largest of the explosions registered 3.5 on the Richter scale in California and had a 3 mile wide mushroom cloud. Keep in mind the bombs were not dropped in Japan until Aug 1945.

At 10:18 p.m., witnesses reported hearing a noise described as "a metallic sound and rending timbers, such as made by a falling boom."[26] Immediately afterward, an explosion occurred on the pier and a fire started. Five to seven seconds later,[16][30][31] a more powerful explosion took place as the majority of the ordnance within and near the SS E. A. Bryan detonated in a huge fireball some 3 mi (4.8 km) in diameter.[31] Chunks of glowing hot metal and burning ordnance were flung over 12,000 ft (3,700 m) into the air.[16] The E. A. Bryan was completely destroyed and the Quinault was blown out of the water, torn into sections and thrown in several directions; the stern landed upside down in the water 500 ft (150 m) away.

skeptics.stackexchange.com...

Peter Vogel's website is devoted to this very theory that there was an atomic detonation in Chicago in 1944. A document that Peter made an unauthorized copy of said that a 10,000 gadget (atomic bomb) would mushroom out at 18,000 feet in typical Port of Chicago fashion.

Peter Vogel's website and book is devoted to a nuclear theory of the explosion. As a book is involved there are numerous claims and it is difficult to list all of the key claims in the question... But the following excerpt, purportedly suggesting a cover-up, appears on the page for Chapter 2 of his book:

Of even more significance, Paul made an unauthorized copy of the document "History of 10,000 ton gadget" [referring to the atomic bomb] and removed that copy from Los Alamos in his shirt pocket.... ... the bottom line said the ball of fire of the 10,000 ton gadget would mushroom out at 18,000 feet in typical Port Chicago fashion. "

This is the paper that Peter claims to have made an unauthorized copy of, look at item on line 11.

www.petervogel.us...

This is a note From Robert Oppenheimer that Oppenheimer that supposedly shows that he was involved with review and analysis of the port of Chicago blast. This is an official doc and is sourced on his site.

This note is the only certain evidence so far discovered that J. Robert Oppenheimer was personally involved in review and analysis of scientific reports descriptive of the Port Chicago explosion. Twenty-two years of investigation into the Port Chicago explosion have produced tantalizing evidences of several as yet undiscovered Government reports and analyses that pertain to the explosion.

(This seems a lot rougher than,
but not inconsistent with,
what our people reported & concluded -
O)

Short video about some of the fact, it starts off really bad, but get past the first 10 seconds, it's worth it.


I found this subject to be very interesting, and Peter Vogel has dedicated decades of his life to researching this. I documented the stuff that is easily explained, go to his sight if you want a way deeper dive into this conspiracy theory. HE also has a book that I plan on getting.

a reply to: seasonal

Interesting - a purposeful test, perhaps?

And to clarify in case of any confusion, Port Chicago is in California.

If this turns out to be accurate then perhaps this incident, that came to my mind when I saw your post, might perhaps be something along the same lines.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

It was not a nuke. It was an ammunition ship. The disaster is well documented.

I would speculate that if it was an atomic bomb, the timber decking and poles in the OPs first photos would have been a bit (er) bured and there would have been an impact of radiation.

Similar tragic accidents happened during the war, including in Britain. Here's the Wiki RAF Fauld explosion

a reply to: dogstar23

It seems awful odd, I remember a port and building in Calf. where the ships from the atoll nuke tests in the 1950's-60's were taken to study. But the military quickly found that they were too contaminated with nuke fallout. I wonder if there is any connection? I say a "urban explorer" go through the port and the adjacent buildings.

I can't find the video, if I do I will post.

a reply to: seasonal

Radiation? Wouldn't there have been a lot of people sick and dying from radiation sickness?

I don't know anything about this explosion or its aftermath, but radiation is the signature of a nuclear blast.

originally posted by: seasonal
I say a "urban explorer" go through the port and the adjacent buildings.

It is located on a military base.

Since the area has been used and still is today and there is not one person who has had any form of radiation related illnesses, it's a silly theory, it would be very evident in the aftermath.

a reply to: paraphi

I found it odd that Peter Vogel would dedicate 35 years of his life to this subject. There are some things that don't add up. From the video, there was a film that was destroyed that showed the ports explosion. The film is now destroyed and the govt said it was a recreation. Odd if true.

a reply to: AboveBoard

That is true, I don't know if the people were moved away, or the direction of the mushroom cloud or drift. I also don't know what work was done to the site after the explosion.It was an absolutely huge explosion. But the ship carried huge amounts of munitions.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

I was also wondering if this could have been a ship just packed with explosives to simulate a atomic detonation?

This pic is of stacked explosives for simulation test detonation in the desert.

a reply to: seasonal

I want to drop this piece off as it has some very telling history that I had never heard before .

There’s been an ever increasing number of reports about mysterious radioactive spikes observed across Europe. However, no official announcement has been made by any of the EU states, as officials are trying to downplay these reports as if they were mere allegations. journal-neo.org...

Further into the piece we get this

During the Cold War days the United States lost more than a dozen nuclear warheads, and only a number of those remain in relatively deserted areas. The US Department of Defense has declassified a list of serious accidents with nuclear weapons back in 1968, in which there were 13 cases involving nuclear weapons in the period from 1950 to 1968. The updated list was declassified in 1980, where there were 32 cases listed. At the same time, the same paper released by the US Navy in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, listed 381 accidents involving nuclear weapons in the United States in a period between 1965 and 1977. A number of nuclear devices were lost during sea tests and now they must have begun to corrode, resulting in the leakage of radioactive material into the environment. It is worth noting that the power of any individual, “lost device” is a 1000 times more destructive than that which reduced the city of Hiroshima to ashes.

For instance, in January 1966 the so called Palomares incident occurred. It was named after a small Spanish village over which a US Army B-52G bomber collided with a KC-135 tanker journal-neo.org...

i was stationed at concord naval weapons as base police from 91-95. that was what port chicago was renamed. no, not a nuclear blast. two ammunition ships, a train, and the pier that the ships were moored to and the train were blown up. two white officers in charge of poorly trained black sailors had a bet on which ship would be loaded the quickest. while nobody actually knows what caused the blast, it is surmised that one of the black sailors dropped a shell, causing a chain reaction. there was no heat blast damage that would have indicated a nuclear blast as well.

the small town of port chicago, a mile away from the blast, was damaged, but no deaths, amazingly. the towns small movie theater was interestingly damaged. the side facing the blast was caved in while the rest of the building was untouched.

very somber and sobering while i was patrolling that area from time to time. the place is now a park and there is a memorial to those who died.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Depends on where the fallout went. Of course there were over 300 deaths instantly. And I would think there would have had to have been radiation sickness.

Haven't looked into after math or if the area was evacuated after the explosion.

originally posted by: seasonal
Haven't looked into after math or if the area was evacuated after the explosion.

It wasn't, they were there the next day digging through the wreckage.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If this were the first atomic det, they may not have had all the ducks in a row. After all some scientists were concerned of setting the atmosphere on fire.

originally posted by: seasonal
If this were the first atomic det, they may not have had all the ducks in a row.

And a nuclear device that does not properly detonate will still spew radioactive debris at the epicenter. No one got radiation poisoning.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That we know of.

It could be, but it could also be some explosives they were testing and the test went wrong. Maybe it was supposed to happen a little later but a mistake or delay made the explosion happen too early. It could have been a test gone wrong. Or maybe it worked just as planned.

There was no radiation signature but would they really tell people if this was an early bomb trial. If Albert said to blow it up in a port, maybe they were trying to test this theory so blew something up there. Whether it is atomic or not, I can't say, but the possibility of this being a staged event is possible