Jason Engwer posted a blog titled: "The Plausibility Of Alleged Doublets And Other Parallels In The Bible And Elsewhere." I posted some comments in the combox. The following is an edited version of my satirical comments:
[sarcasm] Here's a modern historical case of a doublet that proves how inaccurate modern history is. Allegedly in World War 2 an American B-29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on a Japanese city named Hiroshima. The explosion is said to have immediately killed an estimated 80,000 people; tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure. Then three days later another American B-29 dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 40,000 people. Why would the Japanese not have surrendered immediately after the first bomb? That's irrational. If the instantaneous killing of 80,000 people wasn't enough to cause the Japanese to surrender, why would the later instantaneous death of 40,000 suffice to do it? That is, if they were able to immediately confirm it was the Americans who were responsible. But like I will allude to later, it would probably take some time to confirm the Americans were responsible using multiple avenues of inquiry. Scientific, diplomatic, political, via espionage, etc.These alleged "facts" make the story/ies historical implausible. Because it's psychologically unlikely. Just like how God feeding the Israelites with quail twice makes no sense because they didn't expect or know God to have done it previously. In a similar way the alleged atomic bombings is an obvious fictional historical doublet.
The first bomb is allegedly named "Little Boy" and the second bomb "Fat Man." How is this not an obvious case of legendary development, exaggeration and embellishment where the story grows as time passes and the story is passed on from generation to generation? It begins as "Little Boy" (smaller) and is embellished to "Fat Man" (larger). Another possibility is the later redactor(s) made up the two names so that the first name is anticipatory of the second name. That's just good story telling.
Yet, paradoxically fewer people are killed in the allegedly more powerful secondary bomb, hence proving a contradiction. How can more people be killed with a weaker bomb? That just doesn't make any rational sense. They didn't even get the names right. In one version of the story the city is supposed to be Hiroshima and in another version of the story it was Nagasaki. What obviously happened was that there were competing oral traditions with two different names for the cities and then when the time came to write down the stories for posterity both versions were written down as if the occurrence happened twice in two different cities. And ALL because they couldn't get their story straight.
Also, what are the chances that a B-29 bomber was used in both instances? That's another clue that the two stories stem from an original primitive story. Otherwise, two different types of planes would have been used. But according to the stories, two different planes of the same model with two different names were used [Enola Gay & Bockscar]. If the first plane survived the explosion, then they would have used it again in the second bombing. But if the first plane was destroyed, then they would have obviously used a different model for the second bombing because the first model was obviously not sufficient to survive another bombing [in terms of speed, altitude, hull integrity etc.]. The ostensible "fact" that the same model of plane was used both times but with a different name used for the second bombing strongly suggests competing oral histories.
The two bombings allegedly happened 3 days apart. The number three of course is a highly symbolic number in many cultures, supporting the non-historical nature of the stories. If it really happened, it would be some other number of days like 2 or 6 or something. But exactly 3 days? Like three leaf clovers? Or the three main Hindu Gods? Or the three natural states of water? Three days is hardly enough time for the Japanese to become convinced through investigation that the Americans were responsible. Moreover, the Americans would have been hesitant to bomb a second time so soon afterwards if they were concerned about casualties. They might have waited a week for a second atomic bombing. If they weren't concerned about casualties, then bombing a second time and a third time the same day, or the very next day, or every day afterwards till the Japanese surrendered would have happened. But exactly three days afterward is HIGHLY suspicious. Three days is perfectly symbolic.
I could say more, but I'll end with this. Isn't it way too coincidental that the U.S. President who allegedly authorized the atomic bombing was named "Harry S. Truman"? "Truman" as in "a true man" and "a man [of] truth." A man who is truly manly. With the secondary connotation of a truth telling man. A True-man who is honest and just/righteous. The first connotation also comports with his being given the first name, "Harry." Harry men universally connote greater masculinity. These details are obvious cases of Americans passing on their folklore orally in a way that paints their leader at the time in a positive light. A great warrior with a righteous cause. [/sarcasm]
