[Exorcist]

Hi
I post as Exorcist on the British Democracy Forum .
I have posted an analysis on the BDF of two of the US Atomic Energy Commission’s official Nuclear Test Films in which I highlight the blatant fakery used in their production. You have been lied to. Nuclear weapons are a Hoax.
You can find the posts here:

https://www.democracyforum.co.uk/introduce-yourself/78930-please-read-my-free-internet-book-britain-faces-threat-anglocide-9.html#post1050216

https://www.democracyforum.co.uk/introduce-yourself/78930-please-read-my-free-internet-book-britain-faces-threat-anglocide-9.html#post1051929

[ Note added Sept 2012: This Internet book is online in two parts; start here Threat of Anglocide to Britain (opens in new window) ]

We have also been lied to regarding the Apollo Moon landing missions. I have carried out a photogrammetric analysis of one of the NASA Apollo 17 photos in Autocad using the Hasselblad camera field of view data and height data from NASA’s Interplanetary Institute Mare Serenitatis contour map. According to the contour map the lander is at a height of 4690m and the peak of the South Massif at a height of 7064m. My analysis shows the height of the South Massif, when the camera field of view properties are applied to the uncropped photo, to be 8346m which is a massive error of ~1300m! This confirms beyond doubt what other researchers have been pointing out for years. The Apollo missions were faked, the mountains are painted backdrops (they failed to get the heights of the backdrops correct!) and the photos were shot in a Hollywood film studio. The 6 analysis drawings are available at posts 305 and 306 on this thread of the British Democracy Forum:

https://www.democracyforum.co.uk/environment-energy/91950-gunning-fraud-corbyn.html#post1102230


If you wish to see the drawings you will need to register and log in, the reason being that the forum software prevents guests viewing uploaded images. You can then copy the images, print them out and study them at your leisure. I would also advise you to view all posts on the thread. In them, I explain in simple lay terms the "conceptual artist's glass" idea I use in the analysis.

You will note the usual ridicule tactics of the Forum’s Disinfo Team but when it comes to debunking the analysis they run away having no contrary argument whatsoever to refute it. Since posting them I have added extra annotation and will shortly upload them to photobucket and provide a link for you. Time permitting I plan to analyse other photos using the same technique.

I will also post an analysis on here of AEC’s Nuclear Test Film #11 featured on YouTubes talkingstick.tv channel in the next couple of days followed by analyses of other Test Films from the same source. The fakery is laughable.

[Exorcist]

The following frames are extracted from OFFICIAL NUCLEAR TEST FILM #11 on YouTube's talkingstick.tv channel at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/user/talkingsticktv?blend=1&ob=video-mustangbase#p/c/EFFE6316B694B346/2/NC5l3s1wcuw

The portion of the video I'm highlighting is alleged to be the film record of a battalion of US soldiers witnessing the explosion of an air dropped nuclear weapon.



Frame above at 42:45 just before the explosion



A couple of frames later we see a semi-circular anomaly which on subsequent frames creeps up the screen until we have a "white out". The problem is there is no flash in the distance to cause this anomaly!.



At 42:54 the "white out" begins to clear, the soldiers stand up in their trenches and we see the mushroom appear. Look at the bright top of the "mushroom". It's rectangular! Could the vista be, in fact, a film of a small scale pyrotechnic firework "back projected" onto a screen with a rectangular spotlight added to increase the brightness? Also, whilst the sandbagged emplacement appears to be the same, the profile of the hills in the background appears to differ from the previous "pre blast" frames above.



At 42:58 we see the fake mushroom in its full glory.

At 43:02 we see the soldier "actors" hyping up their fear and awe of the fake nuke. Note their brightly polished helmets. What happens next should take the shine off them...... but doesn't....lol



At 43:06 we see the start of a pathetic attempt to fake the approaching blast wave. Excuse me Mr Goldwyn and Mr Meyer..what's happened to the mushroom cloud?.....it seems to have disappeared!!!



At 43:08 the fake blast wave dust storm reaches the standing soldier actors. The mushroom is still missing!



..and at 43:10 they get enveloped in dust.



....and at 43:12, as if by magic, the missing mushroom cloud reappears!!! I've heard of magic mushrooms but this is ridiculous!!!



And as the soldier actor, at 43:18, fakes his scripted emotional response to the fake nuclear weapon test we are left to ponder the really important question of why his helmet is bright and shiny when it should be covered in dust...lol.

[voerioc]

Brilliant work exorcist. Just excellent.

[rerevisionist]

Yes, great stuff.

NB there are much higher quality versions of these old films online - there are numerous film archives out there. But these things were bulky; I don't know if there are any private archives, perhaps stashed away by projectionists. Obviously archives held in institutions are liable to be controlled.

Here's a link to archive.org where I've searched on 'nuclear weapon tests' with the media choice being 'movies'
https://www.archive.org/search.php?query=nuclear weapon tests AND mediatype:movies
Some of the downloads are a gigabyte - the resolution must be much better than youtube, which of course prefers files to be compressed so they download more easily. I don't know if someone has reacted - the Tumbler-Snapper film you used isn't listed on that part of archive.org!

[Exorcist]

People may ask "How easy is it to produce fake nuclear explosion films?"
The anwer is it's very easy. Just film a small scale conventional chemical reaction with a high speed camera against an appropriate background. Then slow the frame rate down a little. You don't need an "explosion" as such to produce the mushroom cloud. Compare the effect produced in the video below with the Declassified US Nuclear Test films on YouTube's talkingsticktv channel. It was created by spraying water onto hot aluminium powder. I'm sure they used a variation of this chemical reaction to produce the propaganda films. In addition, by using small reagent quantities and a small scale terrain model, the method is easily adaptable to create fake "aerial" photos within the confines of a film studio building. Check it out for yourselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9ZeXWavYQ&feature=player_embedded

Still from Youtube 'Aluminum Alkyl and Water'

[Exorcist]

In my previous post I suggested many of the alleged aerial shots were faked in a film studio using models, and small quantities of chemical pyrotechnic reagents to produce the mushroom.
They then filmed the sequences with a high speed camera and slowed the frame rate down.
The sequence beginning at 15:03 in Declassified Nuclear Test Film #51 is a prime example:

https://www.youtube.com/user/talkingsticktv?blend=1&ob=video-mustangbase#p/c/EFFE6316B694B346/18/nurNq5SvhT4



I've captured the above frame at about 15:18 and annotated it to highlight the crude fakery.

[rerevisionist]

Thanks for that, and the still frame & annotations, Exorcist.

We've discussed the 'mushroom cloud' before - in this discussion of inventing properties an atom bomb might have
A-bomb-myth-flash-blast-heat-radiation-cloud-1-of-4.html

FirstClassSkeptic pointed out that the original 'mushroom cloud' seems to have been invented by mistake, since an air blast wouldn't produce it; there was no 'mushroom cloud' in the first reports, which of course would have been subject to full wartime censorship. FCS tracked down the source precisely to a sketch by Paul Tibbets on a menu!

However, just like the 'flying saucer' phrase, it seems to have been adopted as easy shorthand. And, as you in effect point out, it can be faked to give impressive shots - much easier than a brilliant short very hot flash, with shock waves etc.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I notice in the frames, the vertical streamers, which I was told, by a self claimed nuke expert on youtube, lancelot?, were rockets to measure the blast effects. Why are they still there after the blast goes through?

I think the streamers have something to do with how the blast is made. At one time, I had a theory that they were spraying napalm up into the air, and then igniting it, to get a ball of flame suspended in air. The streamers in this film seem too far away.

[rerevisionist]

Many of these films (e.g. the 42:54, above) have an entire circle of some sort of charge, surrounding the central explosion. They must have had to do this, to make the ordinary explosion look bigger. Similarly with the underwater ones. And the little model one, above, with the blobby effect - that also has an entire circle of smoke. And the insert put into films in the 1950s - the subsidiary charges are shown going off!

Slowed-down & negative version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsrISr4ivTY

It's *possible* that when an outdoor land site was prepared, rockets were positioned round the outside, or part of it; these could be shown to inquisitive persons who might wonder why the hell they were placing things a long way from the centre. In other words, just a distraction from other planted stuff. And maybe they were discontinued when people asked why the streamers stayed static....

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Many of these films (e.g. the 42:54, above) have an entire circle of some sort of charge, surrounding the central explosion. They must have had to do this, to make the ordinary explosion look bigger.

Perhaps the circle of explosives were used to push up the ball of napalm, up into the air, to make it look like a mushroom?



why is there a long shadow in this picture, while the close up pictures of the soldiers look like the sun is shining straight down? Are all of these supposed to be from the same test?

[rerevisionist]

A big outfit like Lookout Mountain must have had a library of clips. Probably some of these people were actors - less difficult to work with than GIs. They must have had the standard things of film makers - second units, audio people, post-production types, smoke and wind machines, lighting rigs, and of course directors. Remember how cumbersome the equipment was - huge reels of film, very heavy mechanical equipment needing hefty tripods for support, batteries presumably for reliable power. Not that easy to reshoot.

The 'nuclear blasts' shown as standalone landscape shots, you'll notice, are all for preference in areas where there's little sense of scale - no people, no trees, no buildings, no structures, no clouds, not even the roads which would be needed to move the equipment. Also of course there's no blinding flash which we've noted was part of the original 'A-bomb' fabrication when shot at night.

I think there must have been other fakes. We've got used to assuming 'Holocaust' related films and stills have been tampered with - there's for example the well-known Auschwitz photo with smoke in the background in the tampered version. I'd be willing to bet such Pearl Harbor film as was shown in newsreels was largely faked.

[Exorcist]

why is there a long shadow in this picture, while the close up pictures of the soldiers look like the sun is shining straight down? Are all of these supposed to be from the same test?

No. Please reread my comments. I have described them as being from different films. Film #11 sequence from Tumbler/Snapper, annotated shadow analysis from film #51 where the location/time is not specified. There are historical notes immediately below each film on the talkingstick.tv channel.