5 ms·
Well, the details are at least somewhat impeached by the fact that she got the date wrong (or you did, in your comment). There was no Trinitite to be had at L
by walnutclosefarm 3y ago
Well, the details are at least somewhat impeached by the fact that she got the date wrong (or you did, in your comment). There was no Trinitite to be had at Los Alamos until 1945.
- Retric 3y agoCould easily be a reference to when Roosevelt formally authorizes the atomic bomb project in January 1942 or her related involvement etc. Honestly commemorating the projects start date make the story more believable in my mind not less.
- jamal-kumar 3y agoI found a couple of cool rocks... I dunno people's incredulousness as of late on the most mundane of things makes them look kinda like they're missing something
- circuit10 3y agoI think there has been some misunderstanding here, most people read "she apparently was involved in the manhattan project somehow" as "based on the fact that she had this, I think she must have been involved in the Manhattan project as there is no other way that she would have it" whereas what you meant was "I know from other sources that she was involved in the Manhattan project"