Rerev's "Goggles" video: read Youtuber comments (to 8/2011)

[rerevisionist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWz-xpbKcQ0 'Atomic bomb' tests?? - goggles give evidence of frauds
Three 1946 b/w film extracts, showing goggles to view the blinding flash. Many of the films have goggles.... BUT - would you be happy with these sunglasses? Would they have been, if they truly expected a blinding flash?

64 comments

*

claypool is obviously a 'troll' but I'll leave his junk here.?
-rerevisionist 2 months ago

I'm done "Debating." In a debate both sides express knowledge on a topic, with opposing views, you posses little to no knowledge on said topic. Let me finish with these final notes.

1. What about all? those dead in the Hiroshima/ Nagasaki bombings
2. Radioactivity has nothing to do with half-life, it just means that U-235 doesn't readily decompose into other elements.
3. Fukushima?
4. Your little conspiracy about Jews should get you locked up in a loony bin.

You've clearly gone off the deep end.
-cclaypool2 2 months ago

@cclaypool2 And I have examined the evidence. In fact, if you have anywhere near a small comprehension of physics and how atoms interact, the idea of fission and being able to weaponize it makes perfect sense. You're just another, run-of-the-mill pseudo-scientific "researcher" who becomes completely and totally involved with an impossible concept.

You? are ignorant. The facts are there. Nukes exists, nuclear power exists... And by facts don't go spinning off calling them govt. lies, they aren't.
-cclaypool2 2 months ago

@cclaypool2 - look at nukelies dot com/forum where were take apart the Hiroshima myth entirely. I don't know (or care) whther you have any qualifications - I'd guess,? from your frantic tone, not. But the Hiroshima myth is as good a place to start as any. Assuming you're able to read, that is.
-rerevisionist 2 months ago

You also might want to look up "self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction", It is how plutonium and Uranium-235 based nuclear devices operate. It involves? pressing the fissile material, via an explosive lens, to critical densities. At this point, it become a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction, releasing incomprehensible amounts of energy. Nuclear weapons are very real and if you believe they haven't been uses because they don't exist, look up "mutual assured destruction"; that is what kept
-cclaypool2 2 months ago

The US and USSR from a nuclear exchange? in the cold war.
-cclaypool2 2 months ago

@cclaypool2 - you're quoting what you've been told, without examining the evidence. Jews ran the nuclear project, and cooperated with Jews running the Soviet Union. They had every opportunity for frauds. ? And you don't seem to know that solids are virtually incompressible. -- Look on nukelies dot com slah forum for debate - add you own comments if you like.
-rerevisionist 2 months ago

@rerevisionist JEWS!!! Ha, you are a crazy? nut after all...
-cclaypool2 2 months ago

@rerevisionist The ones I have are from the very beginning of the film footage. The ones you have listed? are not the ones that I have. Mine were found with a whole government warehouse full of these goggles, they were not released and I only received a pair from my neighbor who worked at the Nevada Test Site. I'll respect your opinion about nukes, but the goggles aren't the dead giveaway you are looking for.
-cclaypool2 2 months ago

Hey buddy, I've got some of these goggles. In fact, the same ones used in the video. You probably can still find them, they? are made by American Optics. I can stare at the sun for hours with these on. The flash of light created by the detonation a nuclear weapon would be blocked by these.
-cclaypool2 2 months ago

@cclaypool2 - Really. How come the man with a camera? can still see through its viewfinder? How come the pilot's face is visible through the goggles? How come they know where to look, for that matter?

The only American Optical goggles I could find online are described as 'night adaptation' goggles with polarising frames. The AN6530 dark green and B8 XG30 are anti-glare types, but the problem is the flash of a nuclear bomb was supposed to be likely to be brighter than the sun.
-rerevisionist 2 months ago

@rerevisionist You can actually still see through a viewfinder on a bright sunny day. It looks like a dimly moonlit night. As? for the see-through goggles, those were anti-glare and not intended for direct viewing of the nuclear device.
-cclaypool2 2 months ago

*

Nukes are fake? How about you ask the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki how they feel about? this statement. Gawdamnyoustupid!
-Ashesofoaks 3 months ago

@Ashesofoaks - you've been taken in by official lies. Look on nukelies dot com slash forum? - there's a welcome page, and overview of the reasoning processes we went through, including threads on the firebombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and also the reasons for (e.g.) inventing the 'H bomb'.
-rerevisionist 3 months ago

*

The Facts of Life
1. Governments LIE and DECEIVE not about the small things but the big things.
2. Among a Military's greatest weapon, is the weapon of deception.
3. Anyone ever personally set up and watched 100 tons of Explosives go off?? How about 1,000 tons of Explosives? 10,000 tons? Thought so.
4. Warning! National Security, lies and deceptions from this point forward.
5. To be half way intelligent, one must be curious enough to investigate both sides of an issue.
-MCAGCC1 3 months ago

*

yeah i checked that site out,it's not true.and i'm defending nuclear bombs and atom bombs for no other reason than, there is so much proof that they are completely 100% real that they can't be fake. I'm going to? explain how hard it would be to fake a nuke test,and how there was no purpose for such a lie.
-360CATsanine 3 months ago

@360CATsanine - look on nukelies dot com slash? forum - there are threads on assorted subjects, including the technology of bombing, history, politics, 'nuclear power'.
-rerevisionist 3 months ago

This is one of? those conspiracy theorys that makes no sense what so ever
-360CATsanine 3 months ago

@360CATsanine - check nukelies dot? com slash forum
-rerevisionist 3 months ago

Comment removed
-360CATsanine 3 months ago

Comment removed
-360CATsanine 3 months ago

*

Goggles give evidence of frauds. Wow, how observant. Years ago you could actually rely on secrecy. People were real Patriots and there was no Stupid Wikileaks. Rest assured that ANY filmed or written documentation released by the military was made sterile lest the Russians or anyone else get a hold of it. Secrets were KEPT. Yes, the first test of a Teller Ulam design was instrumented and photographed despite you and your buddies saying that it can't be done. Enough waste of time on you.
- kimmer6 6 months ago
@kimmer6 - Secrets weren't kept - there were endless Jewish leaks, though whether the supposed secrets genuinely existed remains to be seen. You seem to be a bit of a mixed-up type. Try to remember that money isn't everything.
- rerevisionist 6 months ago

Wow, for the dipshits who say nukes are fake.... You are so full of shit! My dad did contract work at Yucca Flats in the 50's for above ground testing and we had to live in Las Vegas. My brother and I heard several nuke blasts in the distance. Pop witnessed several from a bunker. I suppose everything he saw and told us about many times was fake? My God, we have some stupid people on Youtube. Are you guys posting this bullshit as a college project in propaganda studies? You can't be for real.
- kimmer6 6 months ago
@kimmer6 Your dad watched? Did he stand up in his bunker and watch? Do you seriously think some uneducated GI jerk is competent to analyse and distinguish types of explosion? I met a man recently who'd been at what he thought was a test - he said the ship was vapourised. That's the level of imbecility of these people.
- rerevisionist 6 months ago

@rerevisionist My dad was an engineer and was involved in setting up instrumentation at Yucca flats. He was also a WWII veteran and was familiar with large explosions. There was an area on top of a mountain where the Press set up cameras with long fopcal lengths. Apparently as a kid I knew more about nuclear explosions than you do now. It boggles the mind when you insist that nukes are fake. Do you smoke crack?
- kimmer6 6 months ago
@kimmer6 - does he have any copies of the films allegedly made; and did he ever examine them in detail? did he know how to detect alleged radiaiton? Was he permitted to examine the sites immediately before the explosions so he could be sure what was happening? What has the press got to do with serious science? What do you mean by 'an engineer'? Do you know anything about science?
- rerevisionist 6 months ago
@rerevisionist... You are lame. You have to be extremely stupid or you and the 3? or 4 other dipshits that deny nukes are doing some Senior Project testing how a wild ass accusation can be perceived as truth if told repeatedly. Yes I have plenty of info. My dad was a PhD. I personally worked at the A1-W facility in Idaho Falls in the 1980's. I am a MSME myself, so yeah, I understand a little science if I try real hard. You're still a dipshit whatever your motive is.
- kimmer6 6 months ago

*

@kimmer6 - you don't seem able to understand the first thing? here. The films are clearly faked.
-rerevisionist 3 months ago

@rerevisionist So are you. Fake. What's? your point?
-kimmer6 3 months ago

@kimmer6 - I think your dad would be disturbed and finally realise he'd been taken in. Pity? his son doesn't have that intelligence.
-rerevisionist 3 months ago

@rerevisionist ? Taken in??? You are ignorant. No matter what you give as "proof" that nuclear weapons never existed you will never change the truth. What's next from you? The Sun doesn't exist? Earth is really a figment of our imagination? I am done wasting time arguing with a pig headed crackpot like you. Drugs fried your brain or something, hippy.
-kimmer6 3 months ago

@rerevisionist So what if these old films are not up to your standards. You theory that nuclear weapons are not real is crackpot. What? a joke, goggles prove that nukes were faked. I used your video as a demonstration of stupid theorys posted by nutjobs on Youtube. Apparently he stirred you up yesterday. Good. If my dad were still alive he would probably be fuming with anger over your BS. Recall that he worked at the Nevada Test site in the 50's and had first hand knowledge of nuke devices.
-kimmer6 3 months ago
@kimmer6 - the goggles on these fims is? JUST ONE example of fakery. Look at the others too. Go to nuke lies dot com slash forum - for example, there are threads on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Feel free to post, too.
-rerevisionist 2 months ago

*

Through early Atomic testing, hundreds of people were blinded, hundreds more exposed to radiation, and the blast itself. If you are asking if knowing what we know now that was insane, the answer is yes. However, much of what we know now comes? from those tests.
- Brantoc 9 months ago
@Brantoc - really? Hundreds? of people blinded?
-rerevisionist 9 months ago
@Brantoc Napalm can cause blindness.
FirstClassSceptic 7 months ago

*

@revisionist I have been given no reason to doubt that such an experiment took place. I have been given reasons, but they offer insufficient evidence for me to doubt the validity of the video you posted.
- Mal1234567 6 months ago

*

STRANGE ... ATOMIC BOMB? SHOULD GENERATE Electromagnetic Pulse ... THAT SEEMS NOT AFFECT THE PLANES AND CAMCORDERS.
- WawsestilL 11 months ago
@WawsestilL - Camcorders didn't exist then; they had cine film - silver halide in geltine emulsion, on a clear plastic substrate of some kind, with sprocket holes to expose one frme at a time. But your general point is right - supposed huge explosion which leaves water, and air unruffled
- rerevisionist 11 months ago
@rerevisionist Camcorders have electric motor ....?
- WawsestilL 11 months ago
@rerevisionist show the source of information ...? I want to search
- WawsestilL 11 months ago
@WawsestilL - look in any history of photography
- rerevisionist 11 months ago
@rerevisionist I REQUEST A SOURCE FOR RESEARCH... TO CONFIRM THEIR ARGUMENTS ... THE SOURCE PLEASE...?
- WawsestilL 11 months ago
@WawsestilL - to confirm whose arguments?
- rerevisionist 11 months ago

*

@rerevisionist However, X-rays will expose film. Make it look 'cloudy'. I hadn't thought of that before now. Do the cameras used look shielded? In the videos I've watched, the movie cameras look ordinary. How far away do they claim to be?? How much X-ray radiation do they claim is present where the cameras are? Would it be enough to expose, or ruin, film?
- FirstClassSceptic 7 months ago

*

I can propose three theories to the goggles being transparent.
1: It is protecting only certain ranges of light which limit the spectrum exposed to the retinas.
2: The camera is picking up something that the human eye cannot. Like when certain cameras are filming a cathode type computer screen and a flickering line is seen scrolling up.
3: It can be electronically limiting light. My dad's workplace had goggles that were clear until light intensified and then they would darken.
- aardvark9100 11 months ago

@aardvark9100 1) White light would be the entire spectrum of visable light.
2) That's caused by a difference in scan rates.
3) That's liquid crystal technology, I believe, used in welder's helmets. It didn't exist in 1945.
- FirstClassSceptic 7 months ago

@FirstClassSceptic 1 ; Yes, but I meant what the goggles filtered... it was a test. I had a telescope with eyepieces coated to block only certain bandwidths of light so it is possible.
2: Ok, never did research there. There are cameras that can see through darkened windows or even clothing depending on what light/radiant source is filmed (thermal, infared, ultraviolet, x-ray). I kinda meant it that way.
3 : I ran out of space or I would have said that. I was just posing theories. Thanks.
- aardvark9100 7 months ago

@aardvark9100 So, the US government was doing an experiment to see if humans would go blind? Sounds inhumane, but I entire believe it possible that the US government is that cruel. But the USA had recently fought a war with Germany on the grounds that Nazis were evil because, for one thing, they were supposedly doing medical experiments on inmates at Auschwitz and other places.
- FirstClassSceptic 7 months ago

*

the best weapons are propaganda an media and they have fooled everyone with this nonsense.
- friedchickenlittle 1 year ago

*

Awesome wiring on that plane must have good insulation against that EMP. The plane just kept flying without effect from EMP. No reported problems from EMP anywhere during thousands of tests?
- weissmag 1 year ago

@weissmag - yep, good point. No reported problems - not even turbulence.
- rerevisionist 1 year ago

*

As an experiment I emailed the 'Oxford Research Group' which 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

*

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 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

*

Wait a minute...I just realized something. Am I really operating my radio-controlled car or is someone in a government facility operating it and making me think it's actually me doing it? Holy crap!
-madmo453 1 year ago 2

Why don't you try a course in comedy writing?
- rerevisionist 1 year ago

*

0:17 - yes, he can still see. you can still see even with a welders mask on, although your maximum visual distance is minimized.
0:37 - the effects of light do not go in just one direction, individuals looking away from the blast still are subjected to high luminencene. this is doccumented in several tests as individuals with their eyes closed looking away can still see the flash.
0:48 - he is a Test Subject. the effectivness of his goggles is the test.
- PyroPaul636 1 year ago

so... your using a single frame of an individual wearing test goggles made of an unknown material of an unknown tint as your proof that ALL the goggles are fake?
you may need to rethink your aurgument here buddy.
- PyroPaul636 1 year ago

That one frame makes it clear. The berk looking through the viewfinder is another. For that matter, all the men confidently turning straight to the windows prove it, too. Get a welder's visor and see.
- rerevisionist 1 year ago

did you even watch the video you posted? that one frame makes it clear you are wrong. you are taking an experiment which is testing multipule goggles and their possible effectiveness so development of proper atomic flash protection goggles can occure for pilots and are trying to turn it in as proof that all goggles everywhere are fake.
that is just about the same as saying 'because a prototype plane doesn't fly, there is no such thing as air planes...'
- PyroPaul636 1 year ago

If they were seriously worried about being blinded, do you seriously think they'd issue people with ordinary dark glasses? You don't seem to realise how serious the situation could have been. These bombs were suposed to be something entirely new, 'brighter than a thousand suns'. It's obvious in retrospect this was just a PR thing.
- rerevisionist 1 year ago

its obvious you have no idea what you're talking about here. you have done no research and are mearly commenting on something you barely understand. perhapse you should put a little more thought into it. where do you see people getting issued 'ordinary dark glasses'?
0:46 - him?
HE IS A TEST SUBJECT.
- PyroPaul636 1 year ago

Pyro, this is my last reply, since I don't like wasting my time (and other readers). If they are serious about protecting eyes, they would do a serious job. Here's a little experiment for you; try an experiemntal blast - mix up a ton of aluminium powder, and a ton of TNT. Now, to be on the safe side, put on some kitchen gloves, some dark glasses, and a white coat. Now light the blue touch paper. Can you understand the point?
- rerevisionist 1 year ago

*

@rerevisionist The purpose of the goggles was not to protect the eyes. Notice that one guy was wearing only an eye patch. The purpose, as stated in the video, was to test the effect of light intensity on the eyes. The darkness of the goggles would therefore be of differing intensities. The man with the patch had no protection at all over one eye. (I feel sorry for him.)
- Mal1234567 11 months ago

@Mal1234567? - with all respect, Mal, this is bullshit. It's easy to measure the light intensity, and the effect on the pupils would be well-known. An instant high intensity flash would be a disaster. The only conclusion is the whole set-up is phoney.
- rerevisionist 11 months ago

*

Yes - I noticed from Nasa's moon landing fraud videos that they often couldn't be bothered with the small detail. Footprints on the moon? Water supplies to 'astronauts'? Who operated the camera?? -- And here I was struck my the number of films of a-bombs showing goggles. But having tried a welder's visor once, I could see the films were phoney......
- rerevisionist 1 year ago