https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN8M6vO_kCg British 1957 'H Bomb' fraud Uploaded 30 Sep 2009.
Recently revealed to have not worked, this is the way the first claimed British 1957 H-bomb was newsreeled. There are several anomalies, including the initial flash being weak, but the one that appeals to me is the way the clouds arrange themselves to keep the fireball helpfully in sight. (They seemed undecided whether to go for a single or double brief flash, or the much more photographable 'fireball'). The plane shot includes a few obviously faked frames where, from being in open sky, the plane appears over the sea. Also there's no start to the flash - the scene shows the sun over the sea at all times, edited to look as though it's a rising fireball. Note the base of the 'mushroom' isn't shown - probably because the device was supposedly exploded high up [Source: 'The Time of Your Life' 1957 birth year DVD. Fair use claimed]. Part of this same newsreel was used at the end of 'Dr Strangelove'. There's another version with a US-voiceover.
Quite a lot of email exchanges; I ought to edit out the repetitive stuff...
Pinewood? studios. Another scam.
thxtothebaboons 2 weeks ago
=====================================================
I wonder now after watching this very good vid by rere, has there been some sort? of secret meaning as to fake plutonium and fake planet pluto
mike86183 2 weeks ago
#
@mike86183 -0 it wouldn't surprise me if plutonium was either? (1) a hoax, (2) only makeable in tiny amounts, (3) some kind of alloy or mixture, (4) too difficult to separate into different atomic weights, (5) something which didn't have the prdicted properties, (6) something else
rerevisionist 2 weeks ago
=====================================================
nukes are a myth?
yourmajezty 3 weeks ago
=====================================================
Great stuff!!? thanks for making this!
ZenFlowerRadio 4 months ago
#
@ZenFlowerRadio - Thanks. It could have been a lot better; but life? is short.
Why not visit nukelies dot com/forum
rerevisionist 4 months ago
=====================================================
you two done?
but seriously its a black and white film, take that into note when doing observations. I claim not that what you say is lies nor truth but that you have yet taken a more? careful path at desiphering what you see. Please rethink about what you see, then speak yuor mind.
Xwannagod 5 months ago
#
@Xwannagod - it is a black and white film. Your powers of observation do you credit!?
rerevisionist 5 months ago
#
@rerevisionist it is usualy the obvious things? that are overlooked
Xwannagod 5 months ago
=====================================================
** Note - Treblaine posted some stupid and dull remarks. In order to prevent him deleting them, I'd copied them - or at least I did until I got bored. Hence the rather confusing layout; sorry about that ***?
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
@Treblaine - 'over-analysing'? What's that then? Noticing? by showing individual frames it's clearly faked? That's analysing.
The question of nuclear power is a separate issue from bombs, so your comment about the Department of Energy is a total irrelevance.
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
REPLY TO TREBLAINE 4 hours ago
contact the Department? of Energy and ask for more footage? You will have to pay for it but if you REALLY believe nukes are a hoax you will acquire as much footage as you can get from them rather than depending on newsreel footage also convince? independent physicist & movie-effects expert to assist.
You'll get nowhere over-analysing a few shots without scientific rigour. BUT IF you can't prove it then you must admit you were wrong and end this ridiculous charade.
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
@rerevisionist The Department of Energy STILL has hundreds of hours of footage and entire libraries of data abut their nuclear testing as it is under their authority. Check that out, don't limit yourself to a few incredibly short cuts as used for newsreels. Go find the source. If you REALLY believe nukes are fake.
Sorry "noticing" fakery is pointless if anyone else looking at it notices no fakery. Don't just? say "it's obvious" explain how it could only possibly be a scale forgery.
Treblaine 10 months ago
#
@Treblaine - The claim I'm making is that all footage on nuclear tests shows clear fraud. It doesn't follow that nuclear weapons don't exist: maybe they were too expensive to test; maybe a test would have given information away; maybe they were too dangerous to test; maybe they ran out of money etc etc. The simple point is these tests were faked.
After that it's a matter of further investigation. I've been involved with science fraud before and? I'd have zero hope that a govt dept would help
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
@rerevisionist Have you done ANY? other research than looked at one bit of footage?
Are you saying this particular footage is fake (You haven't proven even that) or that the test it depicts was entirely faked and never took place?
Well what about other evidence of this particular test, is there no evidence you can find or have you simply not bothered to refute that?
Why am I bothering with this? You haven't even been thorough enough to name what this test was apparently called.
Treblaine 10 months ago
#
@Treblaine - It's a bit wearing having to waste time on a clown such as yourself. I've made it perfectly clear what I'm stating. Look at some of my other videos, which are variations on a theme. If I can? find the time I'll do a more substantial video.
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
@Treblaine - yes. I was looking for serious evidence, and that isn't it. Are you? really so stupid as to find that convincing?
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
@rerevisionist? What? Do you find the picture funny or something?
It's one thing to suspect fakery, but how about you prove it is a fake CONCLUSIVELY. That is the key word; I don't mean innuendo about what this or that looks like, I mean get experts on photo-manipulation to conclude.
Treblaine 10 months ago
#
@Treblaine - It's a vague blur which? could be anything. Where's a photo, or series of photos, taken showing Hiroshima's valley-and-water lanscape and a tall mushroom cloud?
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
TREBLAINE'S COMMENT? WAS "Seizo Yamada" into google image search? and you get dozens of examples of his photograph. The burden of proof is on YOU, you are claiming the impossible not me.
I think information discovered/determined by experts is more valuable than each individual. If I was sick I'd rather have an expert doctor help me than try to diagnose and treat myself. Key is demanding explanation.
I've read eyewitness accounts of Hiroshima & they don't fit in any way with a firebombing raid.
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
@Treblaine - Would you please give me EXACT DETAILS of how to find this photo? which I presume you're claiming was taken at the time of Hiroshima (or for that matter Nagasaki)? - Thanks - assuming you do this.
I'd suggest you'd try doing some research of your own. I've always find if a person discovers stuff for him/herself, it's more valuable than any amount of tosh. -- I happened to have a book (ed Osada) with supposed eye witness stuff, in fact only compatible with firebombing.
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
@rerevisionist how is? it I have found in 5 minutes what you couldn't in so many hours, in relation to proving something you dedicated a whole video to?
Did you even look, or did you just assume there were no photographs from the ground?
Did you look for long and in depth enough or was there a conflict in interest. You didn't want to find Japanese photographs of Hiroshima mushroom cloud as that would disprove your theory. Wasn't it?
Treblaine 10 months ago
#
@Treblaine - do you have a? serious example?
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
@rerevisionist the photos, the footage, the eyewitnesses, the experts, the articles, the entire university degrees, independent organisations around the world based around nuclear fission in bombs and for power.
How can anyone take YOU seriously if you merely? dismiss without justification entire libraries worth of evidence backed up by independent testimony.
Is all this just because you haven't witnessed a nuclear bomb detonate yourself? You seems to have some serious issues with reality.
Treblaine 10 months ago
#
REPLY TO TREBLAINE 9 hrs ago
.. IS at least one photograph taken of the Hiroshima bomb's mushroom cloud by Seizo Yamada. Why would he partake in any? nuke conspiracy? Why would ANY Japanese person lie for 60 years so? convincingly and unfailingly about so many deaths? Yes there was wartime propaganda but that never utterly hid anything, it all was revealed as fact in the end.
20th century without nuclear bombs is like physics without gravity... nothing makes sense without that factor being REAL!
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
REPLY? TO TREBLAINE 9 hours ago
IS at least one photograph taken of the Hiroshima bomb's mushroom cloud by Seizo Yamada. Why would he partake in any nuke conspiracy? Why would ANY Japanese person lie for 60 years so convincingly and unfailingly about so many deaths? Yes there was wartime propaganda but that never utterly hid anything, it all was revealed as fact in the end.
20th century without nuclear bombs is like physics without gravity... nothing makes sense without that? factor being REAL!
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
@Treblaine - As is perfectly obvious from the soundtrack, the material was? taken from a newsreel of the time and? not 'cherry picked' in any way
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
#
Treblaine
9 hours ago
@rerevisionist But the first shot looks nothing like the sun which appears as a perfectly circular disk. That is clearly an amorphous ball turning oblong and in the first shot (if it is of the sun) why or how? about the clouds radiating away from? it.
REPLY TO TREBLAINE 9 hours ago
Of course you are just cherry picking from hours of footage to find one shot that looks kinda funny, you ignore the overwhelming volume of detonations which are undeniably genuine.
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
@Treblaine - They've taken film of the sun over the sea. Before that they took a photo of a plane - probably a model. Then they spliced the two together. The imitation effect of two flashes was got by changing the brightness of a couple of frames. It's simple enough.
Normal clouds are not condensed water vapour, but that's? another issue.
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
REPLY TO TREBLAINE 19 hours ago
.. and find "evidence" that it is fake because minutiae don't match your vague conceptions.
How about you PROVE this is fake by even beginning to describe how they could have faked this footage with 1950's technology? and evidence of that fakery in the footage.
Not mere anomalies that don't SEEM to be realistic, you may just not? understand the phenomena involved.
Like assumption about mushroom cloud being of dusts? Normal clouds are just condensed water vapour.
rerevisionist 10 months ago
=====================================================
great vid. ?
ag01web 10 months ago
#
@ag01web -? Thanks
rerevisionist 10 months ago
=====================================================
[continued] neutrons - protons and electrons, being charged, don't have the same effect. U235 gives off a? few protons, each of which can penetrate a nucleus. The same sort of thing happens with other elements. I'm just making the point the thing is finite - nobody (afaik) can manufacture neutrons or radioactive elements by any other means. Also a short half-life means the stuff disappears fast; a long half-life means it's not very radioactive. I think it was a scare.
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
I don't doubt there is fire damage as there was a documented firestorm after? the bombing. I don't see how the hideous birth defects and higher rate a cretin cancers are exaggerated. Now from you last statement about not enough spare neutrons am I to assume you have an advanced knowledge of nuclear physics?
MrAk762 11 months ago
#
@MrAk762 - with respect, I've carefully investigated this subject and I know what I'm talking about. I? don't want to waste time on a silly jerk.
rerevisionist 11 months ago
#
@MrAk762 -? As regards Hiroshima and Nagasaki, remember there was US wartime-style censorship for years - documentation is lacking. Just consider - how come there is no Japanese photo from the ground of any mushroom cloud? They certainly had cameras.
Quite a few children have birth defects - some genetic, some environmental as in eg poisoning, drugs, US defoliants etc. They can be claimed as evidence.
A nuclear chain reaction is supposedly triggered by ..... [contd]
rerevisionist 10 months ago
#
Yeah my response was harsh and for that I do sincerely apologize, however that was my initial response to how how wrong I believe you are.If you believe that nuclear weapons do not exist explain the existence of Trinitite, the blast? crater on Runit island not to mention the complete vaporization of Elugelab Island. I would also find it hard to believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed themselves or that they themselves caused the radiological problems that still effect them to this day.
MrAk762 11 months ago
#
@MrAk762 - If you actually examine the evidence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki you'll? find it's not compatible with a nuclear explosion. It was probably firebombed like all other Japanese cities. Radiation dangers in retrospect seem to have been intentionally exaggerated. (This does not of course include X rays). There just aren't enough spare neutrons in a bit of plutonium to split other atoms then spread over vast areas. There's no evidence of melting. And other explosives exist.
rerevisionist 11 months ago
#
Just further proof that some people are fucking? stupid!!!!
MrAk762 1 year ago
#
@MrAk762 - I hope you mean them and not me! To be fair, people watching this in a cinema would only get one look - they couldn't replay? it and watch frame by frame.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
=====================================================
Eze 1:4 And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness [was] about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber,? out of the midst of the fire.
I wonder if this isn't where the imagery came from that someone tried to put into a film, and call it an atomic bomb.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@recoveringcultmember - ingenious theory. The 'big bang' may well be a myth based on? 'let there be light' and other rhetoric.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
@rerevisionist There was a rabbi about two thousans years ago who wrote? something about, "The Shattering of the Vessels". Some say this is the Big Bang.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@recoveringcultmember - Hm - you're probably right to focus on Jewish? books rather than Biblical, come to think of it
rerevisionist 1 year ago
=====================================================
The cameras used generally did not record? sound. The sound was added later, probably for dramatic effect and obviously it was not added at the proper time. The water is disturbed by the shockwave, which propagates out at the speed of sound. At the base of the explosion and you see it moving outward in concentric circles.
It's not a pinpoint because the fireball expands in well under one film frame. The film was purpose designed to withstand extreme changes in light.
DrBuzz0 1 year ago
=====================================================
Referring to 1:45, It's very likely that this test was of a "super-oralloy" or "boosted fission" (all? H-bombs are technically "boosted-fission) design. The fact that the yield was so comparatively low and the fact that that the Americans and Russians did not have air-drop H weapons at the time would tend to bear this theory out.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie - the serious problem with 'H Bomb' films is the double flash. This must have been faked.? The rationale is there's an A bomb, then the surrounding stuff fuses. BUT if there's a first flash visible, obviously the a bomb has exploded, and all the surrounding stuff must be taken with it. The flash separated by a frame of film is clearly a fake, designed by some cinematographer trying to make the thing look like what he'd been told.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
Comment removed
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
#
@rerevisionist Well, you need to know some physics first. What you see isn't? really a flash because any nuclear weapon produces most? of it's energy in in the X-ray, Gamma and UV bands of the spectrum. The "Flash" you see is the surrounding air being superheated by "soft X-rays". This superheated air produces nitrous oxide, a form of "smog" if you will. This momentarily obscures the "flash", which is the atmosphere being ignited by radiation. That said, truth is the first casualty of war.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie - it's not a flash I see, it's a flash whoever designed the film put in. Oxides of nitrogen aren't a form of smog. You? need to know some physics first.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
@rerevisionist I have explained to you that nuclear weapons put out large amounts of energy in the x-ray spectrum. The x-rays heat the air producing a "flash".? Oxides of nitrogen form (the visible element in smog-or the element of smog that obscures your vision) and the "flash" appears to diminish for a fraction of a second. You cannot explain away the laws of physics no matter how hard you try.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie - you're quite funny. Well done. You'll? need to try harder.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
@rerevisionist Well I've told you how nuclear weapons work and what you are really seeing in the? film, I don't know what more I can tell you.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie - you're? too kind.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie X-rays heat air? Are you sure about that? From what I have observed,? air is transparent to electromagnetic radiation. Cite some experiments to confirm your statement that X-rays heat air. i am doubtful about what you are saying.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@recoveringcultmember If "air is transparent to electromagnetic radiation" how do you heat your food or your home? Are you saying you cannot heat? air? Maybe you should remove that "X" from your forehead and get a life.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie - have you heard of conduction, convection, and radiation? There are several methods of heating air. A hot light bulb heats air by conduction and convecttion, i.e. by close contact with the hot body, and this heat moves out by in turn heating neighbouring air. An electric heater across a room can be? felt, but it's because the IR falls on you and warms you up. The intervening air is only affected at a few wavelengths.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
@rerevisionist? I think you have just answered your own question.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie -? i was your question
rerevisionist 1 year ago
=====================================================
@faffaflunkie Food and homes aren't made of air. A microwave oven doesn't use X-rays; it works at the resonance frequency of water molecules. It heats water in the food, which in turn, heats the other parts of food. Air is transparent to microwaves.
Air can be heated by? contact with hot surfaces. i have never heard of heating a home with X-rays. If air wasn't transparent to electromagnetic radiation, you could have radio communications and the sun wouldn't shine through to earth.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@recoveringcultmember I meant, you could not have radio communications.
I just ran my microwave oven empty for twenty seconds. I then opened it and put my hand inside. It? was a little warm, but not much. And I think the warmth if from the normal heating of electrical circuitry, not from the microwaves directly heating the air.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@recoveringcultmember I can settle this once an for all. Have you ever owned a "CRT" style television or monitor? Don't you remember your Mother telling you not to sit too close to the screen? There is (or at one time, was) at least some truth to that admonition air absorbs radiation in the X-ray band. In the "CRT" example, obviously it will not produce enough radiation to heat the room but if the air did not? absorb X-rays, your lifetime radiation dose would long ago have been exceeded.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie Thanks for reminding me. Yes; A color picture tube generates X-rays. Now tell me: When you turn on a color television, does a fog form in front of it? I've never notice such a thing. So what have you settled? Another? example of X-rays not making a fog. But, perhaps you have forgotten the thick piece of leaded glass that's on the front of a color television picture tube to stop the X-rays. Now, please show me an example of X-rays making fog.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@recoveringcultmember First of all X-rays do not make "fog". What you see, or more accurately what obscures your view are oxides of nitrogen. These oxides of nitrogen are produced from heat the same way as in a high compression diesel or gasoline engine. If a television set produced "X-ray fog"? as you put it, you would have been incinerated in your favorite chair a few milliseconds beforehand. Obviously you cannot see X-rays, and that is why inside a CRT set there will be a X-ray warning posted.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie OK then; X-rays do not produce fog. That's what I thought.?
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie X-rays produce a 'flash'. Oh, i got a little confused and thought you were saying the X-rays produced a 'fog'. Excuse me.? So it's a flash. Now, cite for me an experimental proof that X-rays produce a 'flash' in air.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@recoveringcultmember First you see a "flash" which is visible light (a small percentage of the? total energy released). The rest of the energy released is radiation, mostly X-rays. Since you cannot "see" X-rays, the "second flash" occurs AFTER the X-rays have heated the surrounding air and the obscuring "fog" (as you put it) has dissipated. The British camera work is surprisingly poor and this video is not the best example of the aforementioned phenomena. In better films this effect is clear.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
=====================================================
@faffaflunkie - you'e missing the entire point here (though in passing, oxides of nitrogen are gaseous, and not a 'fog'). If there's a double flash it must take place in a tiny fraction of a second, before the supposed initial A bomb's? vast heat has melted and evaporated and generally dissipated the device. It is simply not possible it would wait 1/12 second. Clearly the fake pictures are got by having one bright frame, one dark, then one bright. That's the point.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
@rerevisionist You again. The laws of physics dictate what you are seeing, not cheap "camera tricks". You can't see a "flash" before the massive case of the device (which is designed to contain radiation) is "dissipated". Most of the reaction takes place BEFORE the bomb light exits the? casing. If the bomb is designed correctly the casing will contain most of the fusion reaction which will THEN ignite the fissionable casing causing the huge fireball. The flash is only the initial visible light.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie - I'll try one more time. A film is presented as evidence. It is impossible there could be a 3-frame gap, 1/12? sec between two hypothetical flashes. Therefore the film is a fake. It doesn't follow the whole nuke bombs thing is a fake - maybe it was so expensive to make one, they thought, ooh let's fake it - no body will know. Perhaps. But the fact is the film is an obvious fake.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
@rerevisionist A film is NOT evidence. A film is only hearsay. A film must be bolstered by witnesses of the actual event or the testimony of scientific "experts". This film on it's own shows nothing. You? are simply alleging British quackery for no particular reason except for the purpose of being argumentative.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
=====================================================
@faffaflunkie I thought the fission was supposed to happen first, than the fussion. Anyway, isn't this the bomb that was admitted to not being a hydrogen bomb? LIke back in 1992, didn't they say, "Well, it really wasn't an H bomb, it was just an? ordinary atomic bomb." So you are seeing things you think should be there because you think it is an hydrogen fussion bomb, and you think you know what one should look like. I think it's just napalm.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@recoveringcultmember Ok. Here's how it works. There is a fission primary? inside a case made out of a dense material, usually depleted uranium. The radiation is channeled into the secondary which has fusion fuel. In the early "thermonuclear" weapons the main purpose of the "fusion" was to produce neutrons of such an energy as to fission the casing which was made of "depleted" uranium. This was erroneously described as a "three stage bomb".
The heavy casing likely contained the fusion reaction.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
#
@rerevisionist That's what I was wondering. Even if X-rays can? heat air until it glows, how long would that glow last?
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie Suggest? a video.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@recoveringcultmember youtube.com/watch?v=-dDwkuVKLhE (Entitled "British High Yield Nuclear Weapons). At 5:09 you will see the "signature" double flash of all nuclear weapons. The? effect is just how I described it.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie . Suggest a shorter film, please. It takes too long for me to watch five minutes. But, anyway, I have watched several nuclear videos, and have not? noticed a double flash on any of them.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@recoveringcultmember It takes "Too long to watch 5 minutes"? Maybe you have discovered another dimension in the universe where five minutes is really five hours. Anyway the "double flash" is clearly? visible at 5:09. That is FIVE-ZERO-NINE at "British High Yield Nuclear Weapons". Please don't make me give the URL again.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie You? never gave a url.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie I found "British high yield nuclear tests", and watched from about 4:98 to 5:10. I saw some people with their backs turned, wearing white. There's a very short brightness,? then a longer one. Is that what you are talking about? But the brightness doesn't seem to me to be a flash, but just an overexposure. The shadows don't look right for a flash. Also, the men never move a muscle, so it may be a still picture, made into a movie.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@faffaflunkie I watched the men again, very carefully, comparing the pictures before and after the flash. Admitedly, it's a short time; only a few seconds, but out of? eight or so people, that can cleary be seen, the probablility is that someone should move something. They don't. This makes me think that the same still picture was used for several frames in a movie film, and that some frames were over exposed to give a flash effect.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@recoveringcultmember The film may have been slowed down to capture the "double flash" and thermal effects. The time span is probably less than 1/10th of a second. Check carefully in the backround this time and you? will see some movement in the atmosphere.
faffaflunkie 1 year ago
=====================================================
man this retard doesn't know shit, that was an atmospheric explosion, a couple a miles above sea level, the fireball stays longer then normal because this was 1950's camera? technology........its not 25-30 fps like todays standard.....fuking clown.
snake172 1 year ago
#
@snake172 - how many frames per second do you think they used? one or two??
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
@rerevisionist about 5-10 depending on technology they used, i? say 10
snake172 1 year ago
#
@snake172? - it amuses me how youngish people now don't know what negatives were, or what sprocket-driven film was, or what 'developing' means. If you want to investigate, get an old book - eg a Focal Encyclopedia of Photography and ponder it.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show hide
Not Spam
@rerevisionist it amuses me how you believe this is fake,
you do know the atomic bomb was a group effort by 3 countries, UK included. I'm pretty sure they had the know how as well as the technology to make a H bomb by that time considering the first test was well over 5 years before this one.
that? or they had some pretty dank CGI back then.
sprocket-driven? film rofl! you sir are a troll, and not a very good one.....
snake172 1 year ago
#
@snake172 - in those days film was driven by sprockets. To this day avatars and logos of films show sprocket holes as an aide-memoire.
You seem naive? about some scientific claims. NASA is in the same category as these nuclear frauds. They want to hold on to their money. And there are plenty of fools who believe anything. - Such as computer graphics in 1957.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
@rerevisionist ahahahah
i bet you also thought the moon landings were fake or how 911 was some elaborate conspiracy that makes no? sense what so ever.
why would they go through all that trouble in the first place, do they honestly think they'd fool intelligence agency's around the world only to have some guy in his bedroom uncover it all years later XD.
" Such as computer graphics in 1957" ye i know, i was being sarcastic, but you just proved how retarded your claims really are.
snake172 1 year ago
#
@snake172 - Ignoring your stupid comments, it's a serious point re other nations. Chinese nuke videos, and Indian, show just the same frauds. The Chinese ones look as though they were made by the same film crew. It's impossible to be sure whether e.g. the British thought the US couldn't have faked it, and so in desperation faked theirs; or? whether the techies knew, but not govts. My best guess is that govts had wool pulled over their eyes by techies.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
@rerevisionist rofl! sorry? can't reply to that one, cracked me up though.
snake172 11 months ago
=====================================================
@snake172 man you guys stick out? like sore thumbs.
JohnnyGasTank 11 months ago
=====================================================
Strong Physics?
fusorman 1 year ago
=====================================================
the problem as the autors had no understand :
it was no altitude nuke test ...
nuclear weapon need to explode in? altitude to use her maximum effect of shock wave !
the majority of nuke test are on the ground : shock wave are minimised in this conditions ...
alpacks 1 year ago
#
@alpacks - 'Maximum effect of shock wave'? - There? is no effect on the sea, and there's no effect on the plane.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
=====================================================
Looks real enough to me... wouldn't like to? be any closer
MrBazzat11 1 year ago
=====================================================
The fact that the atomic bomb doesn't exist also means that Israel doesn't possess the bomb. Interesting.
And It means that Mordechai Vanunu is in fact still a mossad agent. He was never sent in prison. His story was invented in order to reinforce people's belief in the existence of the atomic? bomb. Some people call this "hoax maintenance".
voerioc 1 year ago
#
@voerioc - thanks for the phrase 'hoax maintenance'! -- It does seem likely, doesn't it, that Vanunu was an agent. The story was heavily promoted including a sex story with a 'female Israeli agent'. The media said? things like - he looks in remarkable condition for someone after 18 years' solitary confinement! ? Of course, it's hard to check if someone's in solitary - no other prisoners see him! So it's an ideal cover.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
=====================================================
Contrary to my previous assertion, the cloud chamber effect is? caused by electrically-charged sub-atomic particles, not by a heat/pressure wave, sorry.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
A cloud chamber is supersaturated? air, which needs just a seed to start condensation. It needs chilly, damp, and still conditions. Not a damn great explosion.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
You are thinking of a diffusion cloud chamber, I am thinking of a Wilson cloud chamber in which the cold conditions are created after? the air is saturated, as would be the case if a nuke detonated in the conditions prevalent where this bomb was detonated (Malden Island).
This cloud only manifests it's self when a bomb explodes in moist (saturated) air, which would be the case given where this bomb was detonated. This is the reason as to why the Nevada tests did not form condensation clouds.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
A Wilson cloud chamber was based on Scottish weather - cold, saturated. Warm air is rarely saturated - and very hot air can take even more water (which is why the tropics feel very humid). Your entire argument is based on confused oddments? from supersonic planes, freak weather etc and doesn't apply to a hugely hot point source.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
=====================================================
Yes. Claiming that in a area with a heat of nearly? 4000 C° you can have the creation of a water-vapor cloud is simply ridiculous.
voerioc 1 year ago
#
Although irrelavent to the condensation cloud, you still have not taken into account the sound of the explosion in the video which you cite as "supposedly" being the actual sound.
I will say once again that the sound in the video is not the actual sound of the explosion, but is a sound effect syncronized to the news reel? to enhance the drama of the footage. Alot of nuke films are presented this way. So your argument isn't still valid.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
@ccmm53095 And what else do you think they may have done to 'enhance the drama' of the film?? Paint in ships and clouds, maybe?
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
It is a fact? that the sound of the shockwave does not preceed the arrival of the shockwave. As I pointed out earlier the shockwave is visible between 0:52 and 1:14 in the video, at a great distance, so great that it would probably take several minutes to reach the ship, yet you cite the syncronized sound effects as evidence.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
Soot, that is the hot fireball condensing at a higher (albeit cooler) altitude. It registers as looking like soot because? the footage is dark, you cannot cite it.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
=====================================================
Some? 'nuclear' videos show the sound arriving late - it's just as dramatic, maybe more so. However there's a problem here because the airplane has to seem far enough off to be safe. They must have decided just to fake the sound - they were faking the rest of it, after all
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
I just added a new annotation to? the video.
Pointing oput that the reflection of the sun - er sorry explosion - in the sea, remains completely the same, unruffled, a simple reflection, when there should be a damn great tsunami of water.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
The only time massive water waves form, is when the source of the disturbance is locate very near, on, or beneath the water. A "tsunami" can not even be caused as a result of anything other than an earthquake or an underground nuke explosion of unprecedented size. The blast from a 200 KT bomb detonated at 7,200 feet such as the one shown here, would not have been powerful enough to result in? any more of a disturbance in the water than was visable here.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
You seem to vacillate between thinking it's a huge blast, then none at all. The airplane in the film is shown as being completely unaffected. But this is not possible. You have to understand that these explosions are meant to be hugely hot, unlike normal bangs. There's no question of condensation. The average temperature goes up.
Reflections in the sea - wind causes the? ripples. A huge blast would have some effect, since it would be a much stronger wind.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
It is a huge blast, but it's not as big as you seem to think an explosion of that size should be. You over-estimate the impact that an explosion of that size? (200KT detonated at 7,200ft) would have, so that you can point out how minimal the notacable effects are in the video, for the sole purpose of making your theory seem more plausable.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
You seem to have no grasp of the science, nor are you able to produce even approximate? calculations to support your nonsense.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
Neither do you. as you assume that a massive waterwave can form, and? assume that condensation is not possible in these conditions. Since we aren't going to reach a consensus, I will cease to contact you any further, it is a waste of time.
If you had done further research on this topic you would have found that when the temprature of the air is heated, the water vapor does as well, so any cooling relative to the average temprature of the air will result in condensation.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
A 'massive waterwave'. It's quite funny talking to people who have no idea what's going on. The reflection is obviously the sun; it's completely static apart from standard small? waves. 'When the temprature is heated' ... you're right in saying you're wasting [my] timecontacting this site.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
@rerevisionist hahaha you sir are a dikhead with your head so far up your ass its practicaly absorbing? shit as we speak.......
snake172 1 year ago
=====================================================
You are the greatest troll? in the history of the internets. I salute you.
FactualTruthProvider 1 year ago
=====================================================
As an experiment I emailed the 'Oxford Research Group' which Frank Barnaby, a supposed expert, run or ran; plus various associates listed on their website - john sloboda, paul rogers, hamit dardagan, chris abbott, fiona harrison, andy roberts, thomas phipps, rosie holdsworth. Barnaby was foolish enough to reply once, obviously a poltical mistake. None of the others? have replied....
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
...and the huge blast (we can hear it-so it must have passed between the fireball and us) leaves those clouds untouched!
This is? primarily because the sound you hear is not the sound of the explosion but sound effects pertaining to an explosion which where syncronized to the video of the actual explosion to increase dramatic effect!!!
Duh.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
I emailed? to say that LIFE mag had photos of nuclear weapons (some samll ones online) and before TV this must have been a major way to shove this stuff in the public mind.
ALSO search here for "atom bombs dimensional analysis" for a LIFE picture supposed;y of the first A bomb - it's the same cut out style as in the H bomb picture.
[I posted this before but I think the URLs prevented it getting through]
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
The clouds you point out which seem to be "arranging themselves" are not natural clouds to begin with, but are instead condensation clouds which where formed due to the? extreme heating and pressurization of moisture caused by the detonation. The reason as to why the condensation clouds move, is because they are being pushed outward by the blast.
If you are truely open-minded you will take this rebuttal into consideration.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
So an extreme heat leads to the condensation of water from air. I thought it was cold which led? to that. Funny.
voerioc 1 year ago
#
@voerioc
The explosion? produces heat and pressure which result in the shockwave. The shockwave results in rarification, which results in the cooling of the air, causing the water-vapor in the air to condense, which forms condensation clouds.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
Well, so, you have a explosion which heats the air at a temperature of 4000? C'. But the shockwave colds it to the point were water-vapor forms clouds. What a loss of pressure. Very funny.
voerioc 1 year ago
#
voerioc, this is how the mistake is amde:--
A normal? shock wave (eg with supersonic airplane) alters the pressure distribution, but not the average temperature. So the low pressure parts can precipitate water. BUT of course a nuclear explosion would cause a colossal heat increase, which they forget about - as ccmm's posts show.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
The same kind of condensation is sometimes seen above the wings of low-altitude jet aircraft in a quite moist atmosphere. The top of a wing is the more-curved surface, and the curvature (and increased air velocity there) causes a reduction in the air pressure right there, as given by Bernoulli's Law. This reduction in pressure causes a cooling, and the? condensation of water vapor. Hence, clouds appear.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
There was a visable disturbance shown in this video. You can clearly see the shockwave? racing accross the water from beneath the explosion between 0:52 and 1:14.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
"ccmm53095
The explosion produces heat and pressure which result in the shockwave. The shockwave results in rarification,? which results in the? cooling of the air, causing the water-vapor in the air to condense, which forms condensation clouds."
- in case ccmm53095 removes his post!
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
Definition: (DOD) A mist or fog of minute water droplets that temporarily surrounds the fireball following a nuclear (or atomic) detonation in a comparatively humid atmosphere. The expansion of the air inthe negative phase of the blast wave from the explosion results in a lowering of the temperature, so that condensation of water vapor present in the air occurs and a cloud forms. The cloud is soon dispelled? when the pressure returns to normal and the air warms up again.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
The phenomenon is similar to that? used by physicists in the Wilson cloud chamber and is sometimes called the cloud chamber effect.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
I would also like to let? you know that I do not appreciate you saving my comment in an effort to embarass me.
It would be in the best intrest of both of us if you removed that comment. Let's keep it strictly scientific, not personal. OK!
ccmm53095 1 year ago
=====================================================
Yes, thanks. I think I found him/her - Portuguese speaker, in Brazil, 2007; but doesn't? seem to have been active for some time.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
And about this video, there is the fact that it makes a mushroom, while there is no reason at all to have it. It's a sky explosion, not a ground one.? So, we should have an explosion with the shape of a ball. Same thing for the smoke. When you see the explosion of firework or a missile, you only have a ball of fire, and then, of smoke.
voerioc 1 year ago
#
Yes, sounds right - there should be spherical symmetry at least at the start. I expect that's why the base of the column of smoke/ dust isn't shown, as it's likely to be? on or near the earth.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
=====================================================
This is not nessecarily a cloud? of dust either. You can tell by the fact that it is light colored and lacks density that the cloud consists primarily of condensed and heated water vapor. This is because the blast was detonated near water in a moist enviornment.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
The reason as to why a mushroom cloud forms during an airburst of that height, is because the device is detonated? at a height at which the vaccum created by the fireball can draw massive quantities of light surface material and water vapor skyward. Your type of rationale is only applicable to bombs detonated at much higher altitude.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
You seem to assume that everyday physical properties apply to extremes such as an H bomb is supposed to generate. It's to be expected there would be events which are counter-intuitive. For example you look at those rings, very likely painted onto the film, as the clouds in some of these films are obviously faked or superimposed. After a vast explosion rings would not be expected to move in a? calm, slow, dleiberate way. Just one example. The film is clearly the sun, doctored, not an H bomb.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
"move in a calm, slow, dleiberate way"
The manner in which they are moving? is perfectally applicable to a vast explosion and it is not calm, slow, or deliberate, it is fact that when an explosion occurs the blast expands outward in all direction, just as these condensation clouds produced by the expanding heat and pressure waves did.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
The calm comment is relevant to the supposed H Bomb tests, where there are what look like huge horizontal smoke rings. Must be a special effect as there's simply no atmospheric turbulence when there? should be huge blasts of air.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
@rerevisionist
First of all, that is not "smoke" that? you see, it is pressurized heat and moisture. Secondly the effects observed in this video do constitute atmospheric turbulence, and are suggestive of huge blasts of air.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
#
But even tests made from a high altitude had this kind of cloud.
And often, it doesn't look like dust, but like black smoke. You can even see flames inside the mushroom.
=====================================================
And about ground tests, the ground should be vitrified because of the extreme heat. They made this mistake with the first test. They said there was Trinitite. Too bad for them. So why would the dust go to the sky if the ground is vitrified? ? Hmmm ?
voerioc 1 year ago
#
Vitrified; yes. I met a chap by chance in? a supermarket, who told me he'd been at a British nuclear test in Australia. He told me the ship the bomb was on was 'vapourised'. Just shows how witnesses may not be reliable. Incidentally they were told not to turn round for ten seconds, supposedly in case of damage to their eyes. So they didn't see anything at the start, which could be helpful!
rerevisionist 1 year ago
=====================================================
@ccmm53095 There is an explosion, in the air: the blast wave goes down, but the water comes up, because there's a vacuum. The X-rays heat the air. The shock wave cools the air. The temperature hits 3000C. There's a noise, but not so great, so they dub some in. There isn't much water disturbance because 200 000 tons of TNT isn't all that big of a bang. The fog obscures the light for a little bit. Then it clears. You know? what? I think it would be easier just to see it's a fake video.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
#
@recoveringcultmember: It would be much easier? for most people to accept it as a fake video than try to understand it, which is what irritates me.
ccmm53095 1 year ago
=====================================================
@voerioc The actual explosion generated a midair? fireball, which moves upward into the stratosphere even as it cools and expands. The "stem" of the mushroom cloud is caused by water and/or ground debris which is vaporized by the intense heat from the above fireball and also due to the focusing action of the shock wave that hits the ground basically in a spherical propagation.
DrBuzz0 1 year ago
#
@DrBuzz0 Explain to me how a reaction which does not? create a gas can make an explosion.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
=====================================================
Jesse's Youtube video 'NukeLies' was the first ever sceptical treatment of atomic weapons I'd ever heard, in mid-Sept? 2009. I recommend it.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
He isn't the first one. There was "Atomic bomb does not exist" by moonsshow.?
voerioc 1 year ago 3
#
Yes, I'm talking of my own experience. There's a Canadian chap who anticipated these others. And? there must certainly have ben earlier ones, just as with the 'Holocaust' critics,
rerevisionist 1 year ago
#
Yes, I downloaded? his videos. - I've just checked - I thought he'd been erased. But I looked up moonshow. You're correct with 'moonsshow'
rerevisionist 1 year ago
_________
keywords: nuclear conspiracy theory - nukes - A-bomb - H-Bomb - faked pictures - faked film - faked video - 1957 British H-bomb test
