Chernobyl Disaster - Questions
12 2018-01-23 by Realitybytes_
Not sure where to turn for this, hoping conspiracy can give me a start.
Some background
I used to be an intelligence officer in the Australian Army with TS and SCI (nothing exciting I just worked in AML).
In my post army life I met a retired Canadian Lt Col who worked alongside department of energy with a Q clearance and we spoke quite often (once a month for nearly 6 years).
He knew a lot of things that he wouldn't have otherwise known unless he held a high clearance (or was close to someone with one) and he was receiving an army pension in line with his purported rank, so I am confident he wasn't lying about that.
Some of the information he told me was outed in the media a few months later and a lot of this was quite significant, so he definitely knew alot. Or made a lot of good guesses.
The situation
We hadn't caught up in a month or so, but before I left for a holiday he told me he'd "tell me some secrets about what really happened at Chernobyl".
Unfortunately he died in a car accident; nothing unusual or suspicious, his car was t-bone but dude was quite old (like 80) and he sustained some injuries he couldn't recover from.
So now I have a knowledge inch I'll likely never scratch.
Are there any sensible theories around this event I can read and give myself some sort of self closure?
Edit. To be clear this is not meant to be a discussion on what I know about unrelated topics. I'm just interested in some general theories on Chernobyl.
25 comments
1 14_16_22_BlisterBlue 2018-01-23
Can you give us an example of something he told you which later came out in the media?
1 Realitybytes_ 2018-01-23
The largest was PRISM which was discussed at length well before E Snowden made it public.
Metadata exchanges with NSA.
Guantanamo prison programs.
Plus lots that has not come out yet.
Now to be clear. I am not disputing his rank or his clearance. But even with this information he could have been a paranoid man with a lot of good guesses.
I'm purely exploring this on the assumption he did know these things.
1 14_16_22_BlisterBlue 2018-01-23
Quite a broad range of information.
Interesting.
1 Realitybytes_ 2018-01-23
Indeed.
Interestingly most of these programs would commenced after he retired, which made me believe he was talking to someone in the know more then being in the know.
Regardless, even if he wasn't a direct source, if there was something to know I'd like to explore it.
1 accountingisboring 2018-01-23
I have a friend that is an ex- spook. If they don’t have direct knowledge, they know how to access it or someone who does. I could spend a lifetime talking to him and still have questions.
1 Jordapan 2018-01-23
Can you give some info on the stuff that hasn't come out yet?
1 Realitybytes_ 2018-01-23
That would be highly illegal and is immaterial to this discussion.
1 Jordapan 2018-01-23
Well can you give us some breadcrumbs? And I don't think it would be illegal since you aren't divulging any information from your security clearance. What your dead friend did was illegal. But he's dead.
1 Realitybytes_ 2018-01-23
I confirmed the information, so yes it is.
It's nothing exciting, just CTF information. Stuff accountants and bankers find cool but nothing a lay person would.
1 AmishAtomicPhysicist 2018-01-23
"26 April 1986, at 01:23 (UTC+3), reactor four suffered a catastrophic power increase, leading to explosions in its core.The accident occurred during an experiment scheduled to test a potential safety emergency core cooling feature, which took place during a normal shutdown procedure." Maybe he was talking about the amount of radiation released or if they were testing something else,not to sure on this one. I think reactor 3 and 4 blew the second bc lack of backup power but I'm still reading. It's been a while.
1 Realitybytes_ 2018-01-23
That is interesting.
The volume of radiation is something I'm entirely unfamiliar with, so I'd be curious if the fuel cells in this circumstance could cause this...?
1 standard_armadillo 2018-01-23
What are your thoughts about what he was wishing to communicate?
1 Realitybytes_ 2018-01-23
Our discussions were typically centred on government overreach and the insidious nature of money in politics.
If there were something to do with this event it would have been something financial or politically motivated.
However this is a Russian disaster, everything is financially motivated or politically driven in Russia.
If I were investigating this I'd look at who benefited from the event... But not quite that simple.
1 standard_armadillo 2018-01-23
This isn't just
It's an ongoing scientific investigation, it's a trail of failure, it's the first major meltdown of an entire nuclear facility; it's a story of politics/money/environment/energy/collapse.
Did your friend provide you with any insights or regrets before he left?
1 Realitybytes_ 2018-01-23
Nothing regarding Chernobyl.
In fact in reflection, we spoke remarkably little in respect to Russia at all, primary focus was 5 eyes members.
It was very out of character and didn't fit his profile (aside from his purported Q clearance).
1 standard_armadillo 2018-01-23
Without any kind of incriminating identification, what kind of "good guesses" do you feel free to share with us?
1 Realitybytes_ 2018-01-23
Well if he had TS clearance and Q clearance he would have access to data on the repercussions of the disaster from an economic standpoint (half of TS reports are economic paperd).
With that I'd "guess" the 'woodpecker' never being used again may have been involved (significant cost to write down).
Alternatively the fact the other reactors stayed operational could have forced greater reliance on Russia for power (oil etc).
Both of these are predicated on an intentional event, which seems pretty far fetched given the global impact.
1 standard_armadillo 2018-01-23
Interesting, and yes it does seem a bit far fetched.
Was your friend suggesting that Chernobyl was an intentional failure? (I find that quite a stretch.....)
I don't know what 'the woodpecker' is. The soviets weren't very much concerned with writing down capital investment and operating costs, as it wasn't a capital based economy. They didn't much care.
How does this relate to five eyes?
1 Realitybytes_ 2018-01-23
Other then that one off statement no other information was communicated.
Yeah it was just a radio program that cost over twice what the power plant did.
It doesn't, that's the point it was very out of character.
1 standard_armadillo 2018-01-23
When you posted this thread, what was it you wished to share/flesh out here? I'm not clear.
So far as I am able to decipher from all of your conversation -
This friend who died left hints that Chernobyl wasn't entirely an accident and that western/five eyes interests were involved in seeing to it that it failed as a an energy source.
Is that where we have arrived so far?
1 Realitybytes_ 2018-01-23
All I'm after is general alternative theories.
I have no information or evidence that he was going to talk about the involvement of 5 eyes or anything.
1 SidneyCanadas 2018-01-23
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6jb9ma/the_russian_woodpecker_chernobyl_was_an_inside_job/
1 p3u1 2018-01-23
So from what I read. It was related to the Woodpecker. I don’t know how it was done. By spies or the like but supposedly Western Powers wanted the Woodpecker shut down/overloaded/damaged beyond repair. So a Power Surge in the power system was engineered to destroy the Woodpecker but as a side effect of the power surge it messed up Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station causing the disaster.
1 op-return 2018-01-23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3XF56BaxF4
1 Fizrock 2018-01-23
Just read the wikipedia page or watch a documentary.
TL:DR soviet stuff breaks a lot.