'Atom bomb' test fakes - goggles give evidence of frauds

[rerevisionist]

@dan91709 - Ahhh.. not quite as stupid as you!

[TheTomtompiper]

Having been to Hiroshima I can assure you they are real.

[rerevisionist]

@TheTomtompiper - you've vistied a Japanese city. Thereofre in 1945 it was nuked. I don't suppose you have any training is science and logic, have you.

[TheTomtompiper]

@rerevisionist No you Fuckwit, my Father in Law was there in 1946 and saw it for himself, he was a British Merchant Sailor and when I went there to visit my Daughter we traveled down to see for ourselves. Now STFU about stuff you know absolutely fuck all about.

[dan91709]

@rerevisionist So, let's get this straight. You think the USSR, the USA, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran, England, France, China, Israel, and others, many of whom consider themselves enemies, are cooperating in a delicate conspiracy to defraud the entire world - and that all of the film and photos of nuclear detonations including the Tsar Bomba (the equivalent of 100 million TONS of TNT) are fake.

Wow.

I'd laugh, but it's not polite to laugh at mentally retarded paranoid schizophrenics. :-)

[FINTINLINBIN]

@dan91709

See sequence starting at 0:24. The "fake crew" (actors) are on BOTH sides of the table. They look out of "fake" windows on BOTH sides of the "fake aircraft". Whilst the "fakers" on the right look at the "fake" nuke detonation what are the "fakers" on the left looking at? A radioactive Space Lizard's ar$e? The "fake instruments" are there to fool retards like you. Don't believe me? Ask your local optician how they work & wtf they are supposed to do.It's all fake! ROFLMAO! .

[dan91709]

@FINTINLINBIN On the basis of a single film made for public information purposes, you've decided that there's no such thing as nuclear weapons; every nuclear explosion ever filmed is phony; the Japanese destroyed their own cities so they could surrender; and the USSR, USA, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, the Chinese, and many others, are all part of some kind of conspiracy. LMAO!

I have another theory. :-)

You've forgotten to take your meds again and that's why you're delusional.

[FINTINLINBIN]

@dan91709

Your retard strawman argument is noted. Problem you have is it's not just one film...it's all of them. Eg 16 minutes into YouTube talkingstick.tv Declassified Nuke Test Film #16..Wing Stabiliser Deflection....I'll give you 48 hours to spot the fakery. I won't accept the excuse that your psychiatric nurse prevented you from viewing the video on the grounds of your limited intelligence. LMAO

[dan91709]

@FINTINLINBIN "Your retard strawman argument is noted."

Straw man argument? Not at all!

If, as you spew, there is no such thing as nuclear weapons, each and every item listed above, and many more, are encapsulated in your argument. Either Nuclear weapons exist or your absurd "conspiracy theory" includes the notion that all atomic nations are co-conspirators.

Whether you're just stupid, or deluded, you're intelligence is sub-average. Even a twit such as yourself must be embarrassed to be you! LOL

[FINTINLINBIN]

@dan91709 Honest followers of the thread will note the way you duck and dive and use every trick in the book to divert their attention away from the fakery I am pointing out to you. I urge them to look at talkingstick Nuke Test film #16 Lets hope this thread has a large audience in ~47 hours time when I give your ar$e a good kickingI ....lol

[TheTomtompiper]

@FINTINLINBIN The IQ in this comments section could be increased by allowing a couple of garden slugs to crawl across your keyboard for a few minutes.

[FINTINLINBIN]

@TheTomtompiper

I acknowledge that may be the case with your keyboard but it certainly doesn't apply to mine. To prove it I'll set you the same task I set dan91709. Admittedly you only have 37 hours compared to to his 40 but if you don't have the intelligence to figure it out enlist the help of some keyboard slugs. They might save you further embarrassment....lol

[TheTomtompiper]

@FINTINLINBIN LOL, Proof of my Theory, and so soon. Thanks for cooperating in the experiment.

[ccmm53095]

@rerevisionist: This is another Ad Hominem attack, you're intent on incorporating these in response to every single bit of criticism you receive; insults don't prove or disprove anything. This post also contains references to people of questionable authority; "Japanese" isn't specific, it refers to contingents of a nation. Its tantamount to me walking into a preschool and inquiring to a bunch of children about whether or not the light bulbs above their heads are fluorescent or incandescent.

[ccmm53095]

I just visited nuke lies. You are an active member. You have just cited a source that you yourself have helped to create. My reaction: ?????

[rerevisionist]

@ccmm53095 - I have just read your message. I wondered if it would say something interetsing. My reaction: no

[ccmm53095]

@rerevisionist: After going to your site, I see little more than the usual syndromes of fake "revisionism" (identical to shit I have seen on Holocaust negationist forms) The message I am responding to is an ad hominem attack. I have made a pertinent point in stating that you have cited a website that you yourself are actively administering. This is hardly logical, it is tantamount to citing the Bible to prove that God exists. You have cited a source that has YOUR name on it to prove YOUR point.

[rerevisionist]

@ccmm53095 - You are citing your own reaction to what you call 'shit'.  If you're capable of making an intelligent comment, feel free

[ccmm53095]

@rerevisionist: But I have not cited it to back up a claim. That "shit" is a catch-all referring to ill-informed pseudo-scientific arguments, ad hominem attacks, citing irrelevant sources (false appeals to authority) etc. Moreover, my point (about you being illogical by citing yourself as a source) still stands whether or not you attack me personally or point out that I have somehow done the same thing (which you have AGAIN done). This is a personal attack with a touch of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

[rerevisionist]

@ccmm53095 - please don't waste any more time here. Thanks.

[dan91709]

@rerevisionist Oh. Pardon me. Were you saying you subscribe to the belief that Humans are actually extraterrestrials, or did you mean that space lizards REALLY do run the country?

Inquiring minds would like to know!

(smirk)

[rerevisionist]

@850wagonT5 - why go to the trouble to fake film, if the original is genuine? We have separate videos dealing with faked shots of supposed tests in the USA.

[rerevisionist]

claypool is obviously a 'troll' but I'll leave his junk here.

[ccmm53095]

@rerevisionist: This is another personal attack that disproves nothing; this consists exclusively of ridicule and no logic.

[cclaypool2]

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]

@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.

[rerevisionist]

@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.

[ccmm53095]

@rerevisionist; Just weigh whether or not it was theoretically possible to build a nuke at the time and then decide. You cite nukelies.com, but it sounds to me like that is your only source of information on the issue. Broaden your search for the truth and analyse both to determine which makes the most logical sense rather than blindly accept what a fringe website tells you, not doing so makes you an easy dupe. Think independently and feel open to acquiring knowledge; it will free you.

[ccmm53095]

@ccmm53095: As a personal statement, the better you understand the physics, the more you tend to accept that it is possible to build a bomb and accept that it was most likely done. But i'll let you decide.

[cclaypool2]

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]

The US and USSR from a nuclear exchange in the cold war.

[rerevisionist]

@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.

[cclaypool2]

@rerevisionist JEWS!!! Ha, you are a crazy nut after all...

[cclaypool2]

@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]

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.

[rerevisionist]

@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.

[cclaypool2]

@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.

[Ashesofoaks]

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

[rerevisionist]

@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'.

[MCAGCC1]

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.

[360CATsanine]

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.

[rerevisionist]

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

[360CATsanine]

This is one of those conspiracy theorys that makes no sense what so ever

[rerevisionist]

@360CATsanine - check nukelies dot com slash forum

[kimmer6]

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.

[rerevisionist]

@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.

[kimmer6]

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'sfor 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.

[rerevisionist]

@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 - we said the ship was vapourised. That's the level of imbecility of these people.

[kimmer6]

@rerevisionist My dad was an engineer and as 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?

[rerevisionist]

@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?

[kimmer6]

@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.

[rerevisionist]

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

[kimmer6]

@rerevisionist So are you. Fake. What's your point?

[rerevisionist]

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

[kimmer6]

@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]

@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.

[rerevisionist]

@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.

[Brantoc]

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.

[rerevisionist]

@Brantoc - really? Hundreds of people blinded?

[FirstClassSceptic]

@Brantoc Napalm can cause blindness.

[Mal1234567]

@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.

[WawsestilL]

STRANGE ... ATOMIC BOMB SHOULD GENERATE Electromagnetic Pulse ... THAT SEEMS NOT AFFECT THE PLANES AND CAMCORDERS.

[rerevisionist]

@WawsestilL - Camcorders didn't exist then; they had cine film - silver halide in geltine emulsion, on a clear plastic substrate of some king, 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

[WawsestilL]

@rerevisionist Camcorders have electric motor ....

[rerevisionist]

@WawsestilL - camcorders weren't invented for decades after 1945. They didn't have microchips. The films they made were on reels of film - quite big flat reels - the film went from one reel onto another.

[WawsestilL]

@rerevisionist show the source of information ... I want to search

[rerevisionist]

@WawsestilL - look in any history of photography

[WawsestilL]

@rerevisionist I REQUEST A SOURCE FOR RESEARCH... TO CONFIRM THEIR ARGUMENTS ... THE SOURCE PLEASE...

[rerevisionist]

@WawsestilL - to confirm whose arguments?

[FirstClassSceptic]

@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?

[aardvark9100]

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.

[FirstClassSceptic]

@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.

[aardvark9100]

@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.

[FirstClassSceptic]

@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.

[friedchickenlittle]

the best weapons are propaganda an media and they have fooled everyone with this nonsense.

[weissmag]

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?

[rerevisionist]

@weissmag - yep, good point. No reported problems - not even turbulence.

[rerevisionist]

As an experiment I emailed the 'Oxford Research Group' which Barnaby, a supposed expert, run or ran; plus various assocaited 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]

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]

[madmo453]

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!

[rerevisionist]

Why don't you try a course in comedy writing?

[PyroPaul636]

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]

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.

[rerevisionist]

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.

[PyroPaul636]

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...'

[rerevisionist]

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.

[PyroPaul636]

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.

[rerevisionist]

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?

[Mal1234567]

@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.)

[rerevisionist]

@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]

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......