THE NUKE HOAX

[AnonymousTruther2]

Thanks reel.deal for the publicity!

I did 2 on the fake nukes, the first is a mix of videos already done by others and the other was much more work.
I'm thinking about doing one or two big 10-15 minutes on the "Endeavour/NASA" thread.

Anyway, for the new CGI footage, here we have a clip with multiple examples. First and foremost, it's heavily edited with "older" images.
We have the Nuclear Cannon, if you take time to look at the different clips from it, you can see the difference of editing and color so easily. But the portion I want to divert your attention is from 0:59, and particularly the trees we see in the image at 1:14. These trees looks NOTHING like the original footage. And I'm not talking about the clips from 1:32 till the end.
Are we supposed to believe this is real? They are getting REALLY good.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsB83fAtNQE

[Heiwa]

An atomic bomb explosion, according US propaganda 1945-2012-3038, copied/pasted by USSR, UK, France, North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc, does not only produce a pressure, shock wave, there should also be a heat wave (the bomb centre is 1 000 000° C and the vicinity should be quite hot - not a sunny beach) and, finally, there should be radioactive radiation (which is neither pressure nor heat but something else that nobody can explain). And maybe a mushroom smoke cloud??
Anybody trying to film/record an atomic bomb explosion from say 10 kms should be compressed/fried/X-rayed to death so ... good news ... as all photographers/cameras survived ... atomic bombs are nothing to worry about.

[lux]

I'm no physicist but I believe the orange "fireball" is also a tip-off. As I understand it, an orange colored explosion indicates conventional explosives. The explosions you see in movies usually have an orange color which comes mostly from plain old gasoline & sawdust.

I suspect this is why so much of the footage is in B&W which is very suspicious in itself. Why use B&W for so important a test when color motion picture film was available even in the mid 1940s.

The "Atomic Cannon" footage above (in color) shows at first a blue blast which then morphs into an orange-plumed mushroom cloud. Looks very fake to me. Then they pan over to the cameramen wearing no protective clothing -- one isn't even wearing sunglasses!

[hoi.polloi]

I'm no physicist but I believe the orange "fireball" is also a tip-off. As I understand it, an orange colored explosion indicates conventional explosives. The explosions you see in movies usually have an orange color which comes mostly from plain old gasoline & sawdust.

I suspect this is why so much of the footage is in B&W which is very suspicious in itself. Why use B&W for so important a test when color motion picture film was available even in the mid 1940s.

The "Atomic Cannon" footage above (in color) shows at first a blue blast which then morphs into an orange-plumed mushroom cloud. Looks very fake to me. Then they pan over to the cameramen wearing no protective clothing -- one isn't even wearing sunglasses!

An excellent point there in your analysis. One almost gets the feeling that this was a major precursor to the modern way. As if the policies regarding the creation of most propaganda would read: "always use/imitate lower quality technology so that there are fewer questions about details."

That question you have posed puts into perspective for me a lingering doubt about much of anything official-ish from Woodrow Wilson's reign onward. With 9/11, they used the excuse that most (fake) authors of the footage were technological fools - amateurs - yet that is the first myth any examination into the hoax reveals: the "amateurs" are all credited with experience in film. So they have it both ways (from a propaganda perspective); the bad quality must be excused but you must trust them because they are more experienced. It's a cultural psychological knot they could have successfully identified as far back as these nuke hoaxes, or further, and targeted when designing the operation of 9/11 and other psy-ops of our day.

[lux]

One of many such films, now seen as laughably manipulative, that helped spread the fear of nukes in the 1950s:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2PLls02gOU

It's not widely known that "Them!" was Warner Bros biggest grossing film of 1954.

“Born in that swirling inferno of radioactive dust were things so horrible … so terrifying … so hideous … there is no word to describe … THEM!”

[MsQ]

As an afterthought, I've edited this post and put it in the chatbox because I'm still very new here.

[MsQ]

I have put this here because it's just a bit of speculation.
I was looking at some of the Russian nuclear test footage and thinking what it reminded me of when it clicked.

Spot the difference. Supercell storms verses nuclear explosion





Though I've used a British nuclear test pic here...

[sublimity]

What is the source of these Russian test videos? The first picture is obviously a mirror image..

[MsQ]

Sorry, I should have included more information in my above post.
The first 2 pics are photos of supercell storms I found using google search, then the bottom pic British test footage.
Some Russian test footage on youtube here, from about 2:04 onwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxD44HO8 ... plpp_video

And my favourite pice of test footage so far, Russian Hydrogen bomb, here:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0dUIq8gHgc

[lux]

The plot thickens ...

As mentioned previously, the nukelies.com site is evidently gone. However, I just discovered the forum apparently moved here:
http://www.raetowest.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/

But, there is a note at the top of this site that says, "FORUM FROZEN ON 09 Mar 2012 00:41"

[Samiam-ish]

The Gay Nuke


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVxn6wn-2Xc

[nonhocapito]

The plot thickens ...

As mentioned previously, the nukelies.com site is evidently gone. However, I just discovered the forum apparently moved here:
http://www.raetowest.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/

But, there is a note at the top of this site that says, "FORUM FROZEN ON 09 Mar 2012 00:41"

The animated banner carries a notice that says "too many timewasters and trolls", and that the website will be left "for reference". It could be a spooky, false reason -- but it could also be the honest truth. I have no idea how the climate was over there, but trolls can wear out a forum pretty fast... That's why it is a weapon so often used by counter-intelligence agents or by agents of political surveillance, to disrupt and frighten peaceful discussions carried among free citizens of this planet on delicate matters of politics and propaganda.
This won't happen to us.
I am glad they left it for reference anyway.

[hoi.polloi]

(Sigh.)

60% of our country's budget goes to "Military and Nuclear Armament" - meaning of course that 60% of our budget actually goes to military and propaganda.

And doubters wonder why those we accuse of being 9/11 operands, shills and saboteurs would seem so comfy in their sad professions.

[lux]

The plot thickens ...

As mentioned previously, the nukelies.com site is evidently gone. However, I just discovered the forum apparently moved here:
http://www.raetowest.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/

But, there is a note at the top of this site that says, "FORUM FROZEN ON 09 Mar 2012 00:41"

The animated banner carries a notice that says "too many timewasters and trolls", and that the website will be left "for reference". It could be a spooky, false reason -- but it could also be the honest truth. I have no idea how the climate was over there, but trolls can wear out a forum pretty fast... That's why it is a weapon so often used by counter-intelligence agents or by agents of political surveillance, to disrupt and frighten peaceful discussions carried among free citizens of this planet on delicate matters of politics and propaganda.
This won't happen to us.
I am glad they left it for reference anyway.

Hmmm .. that notice wasn't there when I made the above post. But, I agree with your points and it seems reasonable, especially since I know it's true (from lurking) that there were few posters on the original forum and also since rerevisionist appears to still have a YouTube channel.

So, if rerevisionist is reading this: thanks for the clarification.

[reel.deal]

1st nuke, 1-Piece Atoll, nr Bikini, circa 1888