Remove this ad

I'd like to hear the evidence on why people think nuclear weapons are fake (which I do not)

Rss     Subscribe     Share     Tweet    


0 Points

avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since: 11/22/15

Lead

Jul 3 16 12:20 AM

Tags : :

I've heard about a belief in this on YouTube and from one member here. I'd like to start out with a list of bullet points of the strongest 10 or 20 pieces of evidence and then we can go from there. The first two results about this on YouTube are a 3-hr video by proven liar and flat earth shill Eric Dubay, and someone talking about his video, which isn't a good sign, though they do also use disinfo agents to try to discredit true information, so let's wait to see the evidence. I'll just state that I fully understand why superpowers would cooperate to fake such a thing, but I don't consider that to be evidence, though it would support evidence if there were some. 

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 3 16 12:33 AM. Edited 4 times

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad
avatar

ohm

Posts: 18 Member Since:06/28/16

#1 [url]

Jul 3 16 1:13 AM

For me the principal evidence of "no nukes" is the abundance of fake film footage purporting to show nuclear detonations. Here is one example of many.



Watch it once and then watch it again, this time focusing on the ring of smoke around the base of the explosion. Soon you will see that nothing in this footage is moving except the rising plume of smoke and fire which was obviously superimposed on a still photograph!

Similar corny fakery can be seem in many other such film clips.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#2 [url]

Jul 3 16 1:21 AM

Sorry that's not what I see. It's in extreme slow motion, but I can clearly see the lower ring moving and expanding upwards. Here's a higher-speed close-up of the same test from the same channel, with the smoke clearly moving: w atch?v=-WsouJ4YzO4. I've seen other instances where smoke appears not to move from a long distance and just kind of morphs around in the same place for some time. The only thing I'm not familiar with are those streaks of what appears to be smoke to the right, which were referred to on another video on this topic. I've seen one explanation that they are tracer rockets fired from the ground to set distance increments so that range and velocity of certain aspects of the blast can be observed from afar, which seems to make sense. Since this one does not appear to show evidence of fakery, can you provide other examples?

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 3 16 1:28 AM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohm

Posts: 18 Member Since:06/28/16

#3 [url]

Jul 3 16 1:39 AM

Those streaks are comprised of a special blast-proof smoke that is impervious to explosions. As you can see the smoke trails are not disturbed by the multi-kiloton blast occurring right beside them.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#4 [url]

Jul 3 16 2:19 AM

Frankly, you really need to be more thorough before forming judgments. You are looking at an ultra-slow-mo video that stretches out about one second worth of full-speed footage. Look at the higher-speed video of the whole blast from the same youtube channel (/w atch?v=-WsouJ4YzO4) and you can see the plumes having jumped away from the blast several seconds before the starting point of the 'wide shot' video you posted. Since you say you've seen fakery in many other clips, can you provide examples?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohm

Posts: 18 Member Since:06/28/16

#5 [url]

Jul 3 16 2:27 AM

psmith85 wrote:
 You are looking at an ultra-slow-mo video that stretches out about one second worth of full-speed footage.
 

How did you determine that?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#6 [url]

Jul 3 16 2:32 AM

Ok, maybe 2-3 seconds. Take two seconds and look at the link posted from the same channel you linked to. It's the same blast at higher speed. The forum sometimes doesn't post links correctly so I just posted the ending, but here is the full link (keep in mind this video is from 1953):

[url=

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 3 16 3:09 AM. Edited 4 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohm

Posts: 18 Member Since:06/28/16

#7 [url]

Jul 3 16 2:52 AM

This "nuke blast" looks phony as hell to me. It appears to be excerpted from the "Atomic Cannon" clips which you can search for on YT and which also appear ridiculous on several levels and which include that tired old footage of vehicles melting, trees blowing over, etc that also appear in other fake nuke clips.

That is simply my take on it. If you think this clip shows a real nuke blast, that is your right.

Now let's see what other members say about it.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#8 [url]

Jul 3 16 3:06 AM

It doesn't look phony. It looks exactly like a real explosion. It looks more real than cutting-edge CGI (because it is real), and predates what by comparison is rudimentary CGI by 50 years, and predates computers that could even comprehend instructions for that kind of effect by about the same amount of time. You claimed 'similar corny fakery can be seen in many other such film clips.' Was that just made up, or have you actually seen many clips that you believe show fakery? Even if it's 'similar fakery' to what to me is obviously not fakery, I'd still like to see what you're referring to. 

If there's any disinfo around nukes, it is exaggerating their lethality so that people will go to any length to avoid a nuclear conflict. Even a full-scale, international nuclear war with hundreds of strikes would be highly survivable if people took basic steps to protect from fallout (as simple as digging a hole, covering it, and lying in it for 2-3 days, and wearing a dust mask). Villages immediately around Chernobyl survived that event, even if they did suffer some increase in cancer and birth defects, and the zone surrounding the plant is now a protected area teeming with wildlife.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 3 16 3:25 AM. Edited 4 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#9 [url]

Jul 3 16 11:02 AM

First of all, I'm not saying that nuclear energy is fake or that a Chernobyl like meltdown couldn't happen, although there may be reason to doubt whether the public is accurately informed on the danger of a nuclear meltdown.

Nuclear weapons don't exist. Hieroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed and the government of Japan agreed to go along with the story of nukes. The videos of nuclear tests are a combination of footage of large conventional explosives and old Hollywood special effects (before CGI). They actually blow something up when they schedule these nuclear bomb test just like they actually shoot something in the air when they schedule a shuttle launch. But, in neither case are they doing what they claim they are doing.

The shuttle launches are nothing more than a gigantic firecracker which never reaches passes out of the upper layers of the atmosphere and the nuclear tests are nothing more than very large amounts of TNT and other conventional explosives being detonated.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#10 [url]

Jul 3 16 11:06 AM

Ok, so where is the evidence of this?

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#11 [url]

Jul 3 16 11:41 AM

The fakery of the official footage and the absurdity of the "science" speaks for itself.

Here's one glaring example, in this footage you will smoke trails appear out of nowhere after the "explosion":



Just like with 9/11 no planes and the fake moon landings you have to ask yourself if what you are seeing in this video makes any sense.

Last Edited By: gianthoax Jul 3 16 12:30 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#12 [url]

Jul 3 16 12:53 PM

Yes, it actually makes perfect sense. The explosion looks real. The blast created high air velocity which shook trees and moved masses of smoke and dust. Again, I see no fakery, and it doesn't speak for itself. I've already explained what the tracer rockets are for: http://www.atomcentral.com/atomic-smoke-trails.aspx. And I don't believe any of the things we see were within the capability of 1950s Hollywood. If they were, point to a movie with effects that good (though even if you could, that certainly wouldn't qualify as much proof of anything). You're going to need to do a lot better than this. So far nothing remotely convincing has been put forth to be honest. It in no way compares to 9/11 no planes or moon landing hoax. If you asked me about either of those I could pop off 50 pieces of hard evidence at the drop of a hat.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 3 16 12:57 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohm

Posts: 18 Member Since:06/28/16

#13 [url]

Jul 3 16 12:58 PM

psmith85 wrote:
It doesn't look phony. It looks exactly like a real explosion.

 

[left]
To YOU, my friend, TO YOU.

To ME it looks like hokey 1950s-style badly faked film footage.

Besides the points I've already mentioned, where are those vehicles and trees shown being blown away in the cutaway shots? Why don't we see them in the first shot?  And, why are they destroyed when the smoke trails right beside the blast are barely affected? And, why do the plants in the foregtround of the blast remain prefectly still? Where is the shock wave?

Here is another fake blast. It also has the frozen ring of smoke around the bottom:

Last Edited By: ohm Jul 3 16 1:14 PM. Edited 5 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#14 [url]

Jul 3 16 1:23 PM

It's filmed in wide-open semi-desert and the cannon was 7 miles away even though the plumes and blast are visible from that distance. They purposely had the cars and shacks be immediately next to the blast area to observe effects. The squat, low-sitting scrub brush in foreground doesn't move much because the blast wave had already subsided by that point and it's difficult to tell if it would have even reached that point.The air blast zone for that size weapon extends to about one mile. The trees might be outside the filmed area, or could be almost directly at the epicenter and hidden by smoke. The smoke would be high enough to obscure all the small pines and the vehicles. Beyond the one mile, there aren't major effects other than fallout downwind (i.e. not where the crews were stationed), so you're not going to see the entire desert be affected. The shock wave radius is only about 500 yards. There's nothing conclusive about any of it, and it looks real.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 3 16 1:41 PM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#16 [url]

Jul 3 16 1:37 PM

You really need to have your eyes checked. Yet again, it's in extreme slow motion, but the smoke is clearly moving. If the setting looks otherwordly, it's because they chose a desolate, treeless, completely unhabited area of Arctic Siberia for the test. Based on your performance on the forum, ohm, you should be added to the shill list if you have a website or channel. Posting two fake pieces of evidence ('obviously superimposed on still photo'), and then actually being arrogant about it with the gif you posted? I'm not sensing a productive future. 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#18 [url]

Jul 3 16 4:20 PM

psmith85 wrote:
Yes, it actually makes perfect sense. The explosion looks real. The blast created high air velocity which shook trees and moved masses of smoke and dust. Again, I see no fakery, and it doesn't speak for itself. I've already explained what the tracer rockets are for: http://www.atomcentral.com/atomic-smoke-trails.aspx. And I don't believe any of the things we see were within the capability of 1950s Hollywood. If they were, point to a movie with effects that good (though even if you could, that certainly wouldn't qualify as much proof of anything). You're going to need to do a lot better than this. So far nothing remotely convincing has been put forth to be honest. It in no way compares to 9/11 no planes or moon landing hoax. If you asked me about either of those I could pop off 50 pieces of hard evidence at the drop of a hat.

Can you explain how the tracer rockets appear out of nowhere?


Also, why are we debating  the Tsar Bomba footage that Ohm posted that was never meant to be a real clip, that's suppose to be a fake digital recreation.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohm

Posts: 18 Member Since:06/28/16

#19 [url]

Jul 3 16 4:58 PM

gianthoax wrote:
Also, why are we debating  the Tsar Bomba footage that Ohm posted that was never meant to be a real clip, that's suppose to be a fake digital recreation.


Not according to psmith85. He says it's real and he also explains why it appears "other worldly.". image

You're not suggesting that psmith 85 can't tell the difference between "real" footage and animation are you?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#20 [url]

Jul 3 16 5:09 PM

Back when I believed in the nuclear lie and I saw that clip I thought it was real too, so I know where he's coming from. Tis a thick veil indeed!

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help