Pair of videos ---
FIRST https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbSvoaPE6Ng 'Atom bomb' test fake - 50 sec sequence from original film
This short (50 second) extract is taken UNALTERED from a 1946 supposedly informational US nuke film on the results of an atom bomb test. THIS IS THE WAY THE FILM WAS SHOWN ORIGINALLY - IT IS NOT NEGATIVE, AND NOT PROCESSED IN ANY WAY. The film showed mock buildings and mannequins set up in the Nevada desert. Various themes - flash, blast, radiation, painting things white, shelters, concrete and block buildings, suction following blast - are present here. This extract looks strange and has clearly used black and white film as a negative. (Not so easy with colour film - the sequence was dropped in later editions). [My source for DVD was Historical Archive Corporation, Anderson, SC. Fair use]
@BarneySaysHi - Barney, hi! Yes, that's the story. But global warming, swine flu, etc are stories too.
I only started to doubt it on considering the total amount of neutrons supposedly given off by U235. Something like a handful, as it were - in fact much less since most of any atom is empty space. Is it possible that so much radiation can be generated? Think about it.
There's also the half-life issue: for example U235 's half life is a few billion years - it's hardly radioactive at all.
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
*
@BarneySaysHi - the pole doesn't shake - the film of the obvious models remains stable. The 'erratic camera motion' is where there are deliberate pans and other motion, clearly intended not to let the viewer have much idea of what's going on.
If you think the houses etc have been evaporated, perhaps you should try an eye test
rerevisionist 7 months ago
*
Rerevisionist, you bring up some very good questions re: this footage.
- nameofthepen 1 year ago
@nameofthepen - thanks. I'm planning a few more.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
*
Your idea could be considered if it weren't for the large outbursts of radiation damage to human victims in the area. Leukemia outbreaks do not simply happen. Leukemia isn't contagious. It's a cancer of the bone marrow or blood usually caused by irradiation. How does radiation do this? Gamma rays rips through cells and destroys the DNA, leaving them helpless and unable to replicate themselves properly.15-20% of the deaths in the bombings were from radiation sickness.
Distractinator 1 year ago
Ah, but I see you are more than probably a supporter of the BNP, so never mind my words, for they are lost upon you.
Distractinator 1 year ago
@Distractinator - you are more than probably an idiot. 'the area' you're talking about is in Nevada. There are no 'large outbursts of radiation damage'.
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
@rerevisionist Just because you never met the victims of the radiation poisoning doesn't mean they never existed.
- Distractinator 1 year ago
*
Are you basing your entire theory off grainy 60 year old stock declassified footage of obscure tests? Where does the science factor into it?
-flyboy172r 1 year ago
@flyboy172r - the age and condition isn't very relevant - presumably some of the cameras might have been state of the art. But this evidence is a starting-point. In 1945, the idea that nuclear weapons were invented and dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is false. The 50s H bomb footage, including from USSR and China, is also clearly faked.
This doesn't prove the things don't exist now - but why would they have to fake the film? There are a lot of possibilities - try and think of some!
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
@rerevisionist Look you obviously are adamant you are right (Despite your conjecture), so good on you. Keep up with it. But I really don’t want to get into any debates when I’m quite positive you won’t actually follow any actual path of logic or rationality...It’s almost as futile as trying to debate with someone who holds the belief that the sun revolves around the earth.
flyboy172r 1 year ago
@flyboy172r - if you don't want to debate it's your choice.
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
*
The sound is dubbed because it was in a movie. Its in black and white to make it look cool in a movie. Do I win? Do critique any other nuclear explosions besides this old one?
- grendelee 1 year ago
@grendelee - Probably black and white because it' easier to fake. It wasn't a 'nuclear explosion' - the whole point is to see that what they filmed was NOT a nuclear explosion. Nor were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What happened later is unclear, but the idea that nukes were invented and used by 1945 is not true.
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
@rerevisionist you realize theres color footage of explosions, right? What about background radiation of hiroshima and nagasaki?
- grendelee1 year ago
@grendelee - i've never seen colour footage of supposed atom bomb tests. Most of them were done at night anyway - my guess is to make whatever they used look brighter.
Radiation - well, the fact is there was no sign of radiation damage - the area recovered quickly as everyone admits. Check online for evidence that the radiation story was made up or exaggerated to keep people away. There's a photo? of Oppenheimer walking around a supposed test site, before they invented that.
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
*
SOUND TRACK ... may be a loop. I wonder if someone out there has an automated way to detect repeated bits of soundtrack?
- rerevisionist 1 year ago [in response to an email - someone said it was clearly a tape loop]
*
Black and white film does funny things when exposed to intense light. Like appear to be in the negative.
- timmytyphoon 1 year ago
No it doesn't. It whites out completely. You may be thinking of solarisation, which is a special effect where light is flashed on a developing photo. [ot the Sabattier effect]
- rerevisionist 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
*
OKAY LOOK: I Will Debunk All of The "Cases":
1) The video is from 1955.
2) The music is because at the time, nuclear bombs were feared.
3) The camera movement is because the blast would shake the camera tower.
4) The sound is continuous because the cameras didnt record sound.
5) Why the film is negative, IDK.
- Npeo 1 year ago
I'm not sure if you're serious but
[1] The clip was reused in several films; this one was 1946 but - probably to ave the effort of faking - much was recycled.
[2] The music is obviously intended to generate a worried mood. Why should that be needed?
[3] There isn't a blast - you can see there's a continuous flame of some sort and a collection of other blasts
[4] Don't you think they had sound cameras in 1946?
[5] negatives are used because thy look eerie etc. But obviously it can't be genuine.
-rerevisionist 1 year ago
1) No, It was from 1955. Operation Teapot Apple II Codenamed Operation Cue.
2)---
3)There is only 1 Blast. First the thermal radiation starts a fire, then the blast comes and destroys the houses.
4) In 1946, no they did not have sound cameras. The cameras they used were 35mm film cameras.
5) It is all genuine. Everything you see is 100% real.
-Npeo 1 year ago
[1] I repeat, these clips were used in many different films, not just the one you've seen.
[3] If you look at the film, there is a huge blaze going on. It is not a nuclear explosion.
[4] Soundtracks were recorded on the same film as the image since the 1930s.
[5] Parts are obvously negative - they showed for example the dummy figures arranged in the mockup buildings. The footage is clearly a negative.
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
@rerevisionist
1) No, they didn't eve test nukes in 1946. Its from "Apple II" in 1955
3) It is a nuclear a) Thermal radiation is the blaze,b) Blast
4) The cameras recorded no sound. Sound was added. DUH!
5) It is ALL real!
-Npeo 1 year ago
Please re-read and check what I've written already as I don't want to waste more time.
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
@rerevisionist - You're Fucking stupid
- Npeo 1 year ago
You're a retarded little kid. Beware of the real world, eh.
- rerevisionist 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
================================
SECOND https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsrISr4ivTY 'Atom bomb' test fake - 50 sec sequence edited frame by frame negative
ARE NUCLEAR WEAPONS A MYTH? DO ATOM BOMBS SIMPLY NOT EXIST? Extract from 1946 film but made negative. Watch for inconsistences and mistakes, including prolonged 'flash' (clearly an explosion with burning), many additional explosives, graphics direct on the film, models with smoke effects.... New conspiracy theory. Or at least new to me. There's a tiny handful of people interested in this conspiracy idea.
71 comments
nukes are fake-
yourmajezty 2 months ago
*
the smoke plumes come from the burning of the surrounding combustible materials as paint etc helped by additionary energy from the light and ´invisible´spectrum of radiation emitted... comparable to how in ordinary air you can light steel wool with a simple lighter..! rather believe your national monuments and gateways (as very precisely named in ghostbusters 1 for one..) are giant dicks and pussies to put it simple..!
- jutubaeh 4 months ago
@jutubaeh - I'd be grateful if you could translate that into standard English. Thanks,
- rerevisionist 4 months ago
*
To the creator: please learn to use punctuation IE: apostrophes and such. This is a such a good video, but at the same time you are in danger of making yourself seem like an ill-educated ass.
-AtticusStount 5 months ago
@AtticusStount - if you're addressing me, perhaps you could give one example of what you mean? Thanks.
-rerevisionist 5 months ago
@AtticusStount I have no idea what I was thinking. I checked through the video and it all seems fine to me. I suppose I should stop eating those blue pills. They don't do me any good.
-AtticusStount 5 months ago
@AtticusStount - Thanks for your polite withdrawal. I wish I could do that!
-rerevisionist 5 months ago
*
Very compelling
-ScalerWave 6 months ago
@ScalerWave - Thanks. And there's a lot more evidence!
-rerevisionist 6 months ago
*
If Atomic Bomb are hoax, one thing is... "WE ARE SAFE FROM APOCALYPSE"
- declaration963 9 months ago
@declaration963 - Yes, I think it's good news.
You seem to be Japanese - my best guess is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed, like Tokyo and Dresden
- rerevisionist 9 months ago
*
The aunt of a friend of mine viewed an atomic bomb test from the back porch of her house. Unfortunately, she's no longer around to ask about? the experience, she died of cancer.
- Mal1234567 11 months ago
@Mal1234567 - A lot of people die of cancer. In that subject, the Japanese fishermen in the 'Lucky Dragon' - remember that? - supposedly were covered with powdery radiation. Even now only about half have died, of liver disease.
- rerevisionist 11 months ago
*
@GregFox100 - ... you haven't? worked out how the propaganda tricks work. In the case of so-called 'Jews', I recommend you look up Kevin MacDonald's work - a lot is available on Internet so you don't even have to pay.
- rerevisionist 11 months ago
@rerevisionist wait: ''so-called 'Jews'''? There's no such thing as Jews even though they (collectively, somehow) are responsible for faking the whole cold war including the USSR itself and nuclear weapons?
I do find the atom bomb stuff interesting because there really is a question to be answered: why, given the politics and barbarism of the 20th century, were nuclear weapons never used after 1945?
I don't think that blaming it all on the Jews is a productive line of inquiry though.
-GregFox100 11 months ago
@GregFox100 - 'so-called Jews'. Yes. This is because of the Khazar theory, which you appear to know nothing about.
- rerevisionist 11 months ago
@GregFox100 Ha ha. ... That's funny. Most people would say the visa versa.
It's not a separate issue after you understand that at the end of World War II, nationalism was proclaimed to be evil because it led the world to the brink of total destruction. One of the main excuses for the formation of the United Nations was to deter the destruction of the world by nuclear weapons, which now you know don't exist. Who gains power by this atomic bomb myth?
FirstClassSceptic 11 months ago
If they existed the would have been used by now without a doubt.The supposed footage of "nuclear bombs"is laughable at best.
-friedchickenlittle 1 year ago
@friedchickenlittle - totally agree
-JohnnyGasTank 11 months ago
*
@4:13: "As the site was barred for 24 hours (radiation hazard') there was of course time to 'pull'? them. (© L Silverstein)"
LMFAO!!
- nameofthepen 1 year ago
@nameofthepen - yes - 'demolish' is too long a word for Silverstein. Maybe his own name put him off them!
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
@rerevisionist - lol. You're droll.
So true. "Fraud", Crook", "Murderer" are? also not sesquipedalian words.- nameofthepen 1 year ago
*
So the japanese surrendered due to a a bomb that didnt explode and kill thousands instantly at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Cool.
- ALTF4me 1 year ago
@ALTF4me? - ... They were firebombed in daytime. It's a myth they surrendered because of 'the bomb' - they were trying to surrender but the US paid no attention - see David Irving's video on my site, part 8 I think [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfunvkn4jBM - Was the Bmbing of Japan justified?]
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
@ALTF4me LeMay had already destroyed about 67 Japanese cities by burning them with napalm. The Japanese were begging to surrender, before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were burned.
- FirstClassSceptic 7 months ago
*
Lastly, I just want to say I admire your meticulous assesment of these videos and I only want to present fact to you and not be a hater. There are many strange anomalies in atomic tests that can be easily explained. There are other times that editing is done for this, or that reason. Nuclear bombs are real, however, and have been detonated in many tests, even in war. If you have any questions further then please ask me. I don't claim to be a guru, but I will answer what I can.
-aardvark9100 1 year ago
@aardvark9100 - Thanks. The video I made isn't 'meticulous' - when I made it I only had Moviemaker (and Irfan view) - I couldn't even zoom in on detail. There's much more detail in there...
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
*
At 2:07 you note "irrelevant smoke being blown in" This is from the thermal flash and rises due to heat. The movement can be explained by wind direction. The "prolonged flash" is not really a flash at all. The initial flash is so bright it can't be easily visualized from film, but the light does continue in some intensity for many moments after the blast. For reference review operation desert rock videos at the trench line. Even in broad daylight the "flash" lasts for around five seconds.
- aardvark9100 1 year ago
@aardvark9100 - the models have several odd features - smoke next to wires, and a narrow jet of smoke directed from the front, for example. Your comments on flashes I'd say are complete nonsense - a flash is just a flash. If there's subsequent heating, incidentally, the sand should be melted, which it isn't.
-rerevisionist 1 year ago
@rerevisionist I'm guessing that the wires were insulated with rubber and the rubber smoked from the heat.
I'm not certain how much heat it? takes to turn sand to glass, but it did happen at the Trinity test for around 1/4 mile diameter. Heat at ground zero from air bursts can exceed 7000 Fahrenheit outside the fireball, but drops off substantially with outward increments. The houses were 1 or more miles from ground zero. Sand would not have to turn to glass (melt) to produce smoke.
-aardvark9100 1 year ago
@aardvark9100 - you're not getting it. There should, if these people are right, be melted silica pretty much everywhere these bombs were - there are claims for example that the heat at Hiroshima was so intense that silica certainly should have melted. But there's no trace of anything of the sort. There's a mineral, lechatelierite, which has molten/solidified characteristics, but it's obvious origina is volcanic.
-rerevisionist 1 year ago
@aardvark9100 There's a vast expanse of glass in the dessert of Lybia in? Africa, very similar to that in New Mexico. How did it get there?
- FirstClassSceptic 7 months ago
*
On your issue of dust accumulation either on the lens of a camera, or on the house being demolished: The concussion does 2 things here. 1: creates an overpressure stirring up dust. 2: The air is sucked back in to ground zero drawing a large amount of dust and debris forming the base, stem, and cap of the mushroom cloud. Any settling dust would be minute due to dispersion and takes time. The lens would not be affected immediately since it was mounted above ground level.
- aardvark9100 1 year ago
*
At around 3:30 you note how steady the camera stays and remains in operating condition. I am probably going to piss you here since in your own video compilation at 1:17 - 1:35 it is very clear that the camera was swayed heavily on it's mount from the concussion. Check it out yourself. The thing is that they were built upon sturdy mounts that were grounded to support them to take a nuclear blast. Remember... this is not ground zero so a camera properly restrained will survive the blast.
-aardvark9100 1 year ago
*
At around the 1 min mark on your video you ask how something can be burning in the air. This can be from different ways, but most notably it is caused by gamma radiation. Gamma rays cannot pass easily through oxygen and are slowed and contained in a short distance creating massive heating of the? surrounding gasses. This heating is responsible for the secondary flash which is prolonged in duration due to slower thermal dissipation.
- aardvark9100 1 year ago
An atomic blast will emit light for up to 20 seconds (below 1 megaton). Larger hydrogen bombs can emit light for over 40 seconds. The "flash" refers to the initial burst of light which is very intense. Actually a nuclear blast has 2 flashes of light, but that is getting too technical and I won't detail the specifics here. There were 2 main methods of filming atomic blasts. One used a static filter, the other relied on quick exposures which creates a similar darkening effect.
- aardvark9100 1 year ago
@aardvark9100 - the two flashes argument is flawed. Obviously it's supposed to be fission, then fusion. But you or your handlers haven't realised that fusion needs the initial fission to be contained, so it wouldn't be visible. It's a careless mistake which they have a problem working around.
-rerevisionist 1 year ago
@rerevisionist I'm only allowed around 500 characters when I post so I can't detail everything out so easily. I realize how the containment of the fission process is necessary to initiate the fusion process. These reactions are not directly responsible for the two flashes, but they occur when the energy has left the bomb shell and reacts to the environment. In the post I said I would not detail the specifics, but that does not mean that I do not understand them.
- aardvark9100 1 year ago
There is a number of times you say there are multiple explosions. The "explosions" are nothing more than smoke rising from objects exposed to flash heat of the thermal radiation. The prolonged flash can be explained in two regards. 1: some of the clips you show ARE slowed down. 2: Some of the cameras were fitted with devices that changed exposure settings in accordance to light intensity. Check out the Mike hbomb video how the exposure setting was changed by signal of detonation.
- aardvark9100 1 year ago
There are inconsistencies in the films. Taking into account the abundant evidence of anomaly (huge steel columns cut in diagonal, for example) in the so called 9/11 terrorist attack, I would not be surprised if this was tampered, too. Thanks.
-fnagel 1 year ago
@fnagel - Yes, I agree. And don't take my word for it - you can get DVDs of tests, and Pathe newsreels from eg birth year cards which may have 'nuclear test' footage on. And of course photos in e.g. Nat Geographic and Science.
= rerevisionist 1 year ago
*
You are right though, they are inconsistencies in these films, without a doubt!
Thank you rerevisionist for your work here.
TheTVLicence 1 year ago
*
Interesting indeed, nuclear weapons never were or are now. Like some sort of wonder weapon propaganda bluff from the second wold war. So running with this we could say that the Russians never had these weapons for 45 years during the cold war and were bluffing too and for all that time?
And that everyone that claims to have them now is full of shit too?
Very interesting, never crossed my mind and it is good to go back and double check the apparently obvious history that is taught as gospel.
- TheTVLicence 1 year ago
Thanks for your reply. I'm sceptical too - but if these things existed, why the obvious fakery? It applies even more with H bomb footage, some of which is clearly faked, but pre-digitally - presumably by using matte boxes or something or maybe direct? painting of 25 frames for each second. However, H bomb stuff seems to be less publically available. Quite possibly because the phoniness is clearer. I think the USSR/USA conflict may have been entirely made-up.
-rerevisionist 1 year ago
@TheTVLicence - Not just the Russians. The Chinese H bomb film/video shows the same fakery. It's *possible* that governments were duped, of course. If you think of NASA, what did e.g. Nixon know about it? My best guess is he was made aware it was a phoney, and in effect secretly decided with them not to say anything, but cut their money. Maybe the same is true? with nuclear weapons? Certainly they seem very casual about India & Pakistan supposedly having them.
- rerevisionist 9 months ago
@TheTVLicence - The USSR was run by Jews from the USA. Obviously this was kept rather quiet. To this day 'Russian' criminals and oligarchs are Jews. Note the USA and USSR were allies too, remember, during WW2. German rocket scientists were split 50:50 between the USA and USSR. So it's entirely possible the whole thing was bullshit. I'm not saying it was, but it's possible, especially as much of the media in the US - more fanatical than Europe - was Jewish owned.
rerevisionist 9 months ago
*
Nuclear weapons? a myth? Great news. No need to invade Iran now.
catleugh 1 year ago
*
If they are a myth, the news will be announced AFTER any NWO invasions!
Or rather it? will not be announced so much as drop out of all news etc reporting until only a few dim memories will remain. "Didn't people used to talk about h bombs? What happened to them?"
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
@catleugh The geopolitical scenery can be viewed in an entirely different light, by a person who realizes the non-existance of nuclear weapons. The realization comes that there really are no international hostilities, except those which are contrived by the ruling super elite, to keep all the masses under control.
FirstClassSceptic 7 months ago
*
The separation of stills was done with Irfan view, highly recommended as free image processing software. I? couldn't find a way to recombine them and in any case it's interesting to see this slowed down version of the 1500-ish frames.
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
*
Another thing which is just ridiculous. You have a device which is tall of 3 meters on 1 meter. And you have a cloud of smoke which is tall of 1 km on 5 km.
So atomic bombs create matter. Absurd.
Those so called atomic explosions are clearly napalm explosions.
- voerioc 1 year ago
@voerioc What the hell are you talking about? I have a campfire 1 foot hight, it makes a plume of smoke 400 feet high. So campfires create matter?
grendelee 1 year ago
@grendelee Paid evangelists like you always forget some parameters. Here, you have forgotten : the density of the smoke, and the circumference of the cloud. And it is also much higher than only 400 feet. The cloud is at least 2 or 3 km high (between 6500 and 9000 feet).
voerioc 1 year ago
@voerioc Im a paid evangelist lol ok. I was obviously using to fire analogy to show you that THE SMOKE CAN BE BIGGER THEN THE FIRE. You can disprove a nuclear bomb if you want, but saying things like "it has a big mushroom cloud" (which other bombs have" or "explosions arent bright" or"theres no such thing as fire" isn
t? going to do it. Try harder. If it is fake, tell me about it. But not through such obvious stupid shit.
- grendelee 1 year ago
@grendelee
Paid evangelists like you like to invent sentences that his opponent never said. Like "the smoke can't be bigger than the fire". I never said that. What I obviously said is that the cloud is enormously bigger than it should be.
In fact, we shouldn't have any cloud, since it is supposed to be a nuclear explosion, not a chemical one. You see what I mean ?
- voerioc 1 year ago
@voerioc well, its not actually smoke. The intense heat rises, bringing debris up from the ground. You should look into nuclear bombs more, if you guys seek to disprove them.
- grendelee 1 year ago
@grendelee A campfire converts a solid fuel to gases, so there's more volume, I can see your point. But there are no gases formed by a nuclear fission reaction. The products would be solid, same as the initial material.
- FirstClassSceptic 7 months ago
@FirstClassSceptic so explosions dont get bigger? are you? kidding?
-grendelee 7 months ago
@grendelee Where is the explosion in nuclear fission? According to their atomic theories, there are no? gases formed.
- FirstClassSceptic 7 months ago
@FirstClassSceptic why dont you look up what a nuclear explosion actually is first?
-grendelee 7 months ago
It's true that the presence of telegraph poles with their telegraph lines is ridiculous. Telegraph poles, why not. But with their telegraph lines... Just ridiculous.
-voerioc 1 year ago
*
They are in negitive so the? radiation doesn't effect them dumbass
-iloveme171 1 year ago
hello loveme, as presumably nobody else does. You don't seem to know what a negative is. It was the film that the normal, potiive, is made from. Radiation has nothng to do? with convesion into postitive.
- rerevisionist 1 year ago
*
LIFE mag had photos of nuclear weapons (some small ones are 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 supposedy of the first A bomb - it's the same cut out style as in the H bomb picture.
-rerevisionist 1 year ago
*
I also emailed
john sloboda
paul rogers
hamit dardagan
chris abbott
fiona harrison
andy roberts
thomas phipps
rosie holdsworth
At the 'Oxford Research Group' - names taken from their website. Oddly, hardly any seem qualified in physics - mixed batch of people with town planning, language, English, and other somewhat irrelevant qualifiications. Satirically-minded readers will not be surprised to know that none of them replied.
-rerevisionist 1 year ago
*
I emailed Frank Barnaby, veteran of real or supposed nuclear control attempts. He replied:
I have no knowledge about any films of nuclear tests containing fake material. Many people would have to be involved in the conspiracy if it were true. Although, of course, one cannot say it is impossible. I am sorry that I can't be of more help.
[Can we really think he's unale to identify faked films?] He is or was part of a real or supposed charity, the 'Oxford Research Group'.
-rerevisionist 1 year ago
*
Come on. Someone give me five stars!
-rerevisionist 1 year ago
