What?! Nuclear Hoax

See how milestone events have truly been documented, to see those opposite.


All the rockets were events, many filmed in color.

Apollo 11 was filmed in color - for all the interior footage, anyway.

The moon was filmed in grainy black & white, no color footage at all.

Color footage will not be used for only one reason - it was a fake moon.



What was documented for the first A-bomb dropped on a city, then?

Nothing documents this as an actual event!

See how this is not filmed, to know that it's all being faked.


Hiroshima was shown on footage, both before, and after, the 'A-bomb'.

They didn't film Hiroshima DURING the event, to see what really happened at the actual moment!!

It's sort of important to film this historical event, when it's actually occurring!!


Good one, really.

I love Eddie Bravo


but he says some crazy #

originally posted by: turbonium1
What was documented for the first A-bomb dropped on a city, then?

Nothing documents this as an actual event!

See how this is not filmed, to know that it's all being faked.

Hiroshima was shown on footage, both before, and after, the 'A-bomb'.

They didn't film Hiroshima DURING the event, to see what really happened at the actual moment!!

It's sort of important to film this historical event, when it's actually occurring!!

Well, you've seen that there is footage of the mushroom cloud itself, so I take it you mean that there's no ground-level film of the explosion itself taking place.

Stop and think about that for a moment.

For a start, it would have meant successfully parachuting a cameraman (at the very least) into enemy territory during a war with foreknowledge of the event he was going to film. If that doesn't strike you immediately as a bad and impractical idea, I'm not sure what would persuade you.

For a second, even if such a cameraman had been successfully "inserted", they would only have filmed the same thing from a different angle and you would still be complaining that there was no proof it was a nuclear explosion because "it could just have been a really big conventional explosion."

a reply to: turbonium1

This is about Nukes, not Apollo - go back and open up an old thread again and get no responses if you want to talk about your Moon mission.

Hiroshima was documented - there are ground level photos and videos of the mushroom cloud, radiation measurements, the exposure to the civilians, the ground, etc etc.

The US had no plane that could drop the amount of explosives that amounted to the Hiroshima Nuke, and it would of taken over 150 Bombers doing a non stop carpet bombing to achieve a similar result.

Don't try to spin your moon style hoax here and lock onto only 1 tiny thing that will just go round in circles no stop for 30 pages, no one is interested in that.

If you have proof or an actual theory that has ground behind it of what YOU think actually happened, then type your one up, stop it with your:

"BUT BUT BUT...THEY DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC PHOTO OF THE EVENT AT THIS EXACT TIME THEY HAVE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC SO HOAX" crap, and hash your own stuff down, no one is going to go in circles with that stuff again with you, like the 70+ pages of the moon hoax thread.

originally posted by: turbonium1
See how milestone events have truly been documented, to see those opposite.


All the rockets were events, many filmed in color.

Apollo 11 was filmed in color - for all the interior footage, anyway.

The moon was filmed in grainy black & white, no color footage at all.

Color footage will not be used for only one reason - it was a fake moon.



What was documented for the first A-bomb dropped on a city, then?

Nothing documents this as an actual event!

See how this is not filmed, to know that it's all being faked.


Hiroshima was shown on footage, both before, and after, the 'A-bomb'.

They didn't film Hiroshima DURING the event, to see what really happened at the actual moment!!

It's sort of important to film this historical event, when it's actually occurring!!


Good one, really.

Exactly how were they supposed to photograph the following:

1. A nuclear bomb exploding
2. Dropped from a plane
3. On enemy territory

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: turbonium1
What was documented for the first A-bomb dropped on a city, then?

Nothing documents this as an actual event!

See how this is not filmed, to know that it's all being faked.

Hiroshima was shown on footage, both before, and after, the 'A-bomb'.

They didn't film Hiroshima DURING the event, to see what really happened at the actual moment!!

It's sort of important to film this historical event, when it's actually occurring!!

Well, you've seen that there is footage of the mushroom cloud itself, so I take it you mean that there's no ground-level film of the explosion itself taking place.

Stop and think about that for a moment.

For a start, it would have meant successfully parachuting a cameraman (at the very least) into enemy territory during a war with foreknowledge of the event he was going to film. If that doesn't strike you immediately as a bad and impractical idea, I'm not sure what would persuade you.

For a second, even if such a cameraman had been successfully "inserted", they would only have filmed the same thing from a different angle and you would still be complaining that there was no proof it was a nuclear explosion because "it could just have been a really big conventional explosion."

No.

Many believe it was 'well-documented'. It's definitive, absolute, undeniable truth.

Much like Apollo 11's 'first man on the moon' was 'well-documented', 'truth', years later.....


Events so important, to document.

Apollo is not the topic, so let's move on...


What is supposedly seen in the 'Hiroshima' footage?

The footage of the first Atomic bomb, ever dropped on a population, a city.

The footage doesn't show any such thing, in fact.

Everyone ASSUMES it shows the A-bomb destroyed Hiroshima, and considered fact, as true, as genuine.


It is pure deception, yet it still holds up, to this very day!


So, what do you think their footage WOULD show, if it was genuine?


All the footage was grainy, blurry - shot in black & white, of course.


They had color cameras at the time. There was color footage shot, during the war, too.

We have color footage of aerial attacks, from the ground, and from air.

And not just American's shot color footage, so did Japan, and Germany.


This goes to my main point...


This event would be entirely documented with color footage, and in black & white footage. It would be among the best footage shot at the time, as well. They'd have the best cameras on hand, and have professional cameramen in planes to shoot all their footage.

And they would shoot the complete event, from start to finish. They'd have footage from different angles, at various altitudes, and so forth.

That would actually prove they dropped an A-bomb on Hiroshima, which actually demolished the entire city.


It's a con game...

You assume his coin is under cup 1, because you saw it.

You thought you saw it. Assumed it.

The film of the Hiroshima bombing, linked to upthread, was in colour. So was the film of the Nagasaki bombing, which was also linked to upthread.

I'm not sure where that leaves your argument, because "they didn't film it in colour" wouldn't be a very persuasive claim even if it were true. And it's not true.

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1

This is about Nukes, not Apollo - go back and open up an old thread again and get no responses if you want to talk about your Moon mission.

Hiroshima was documented - there are ground level photos and videos of the mushroom cloud, radiation measurements, the exposure to the civilians, the ground, etc etc.

The US had no plane that could drop the amount of explosives that amounted to the Hiroshima Nuke, and it would of taken over 150 Bombers doing a non stop carpet bombing to achieve a similar result.

Don't try to spin your moon style hoax here and lock onto only 1 tiny thing that will just go round in circles no stop for 30 pages, no one is interested in that.

If you have proof or an actual theory that has ground behind it of what YOU think actually happened, then type your one up, stop it with your:

"BUT BUT BUT...THEY DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC PHOTO OF THE EVENT AT THIS EXACT TIME THEY HAVE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC SO HOAX" crap, and hash your own stuff down, no one is going to go in circles with that stuff again with you, like the 70+ pages of the moon hoax thread.

They actually fire-bombed Tokyo - look at the images

Did you even know this happened to Tokyo?

You do now.

originally posted by: audubon
The film of the Hiroshima bombing, linked to upthread, was in colour. So was the film of the Nagasaki bombing, which was also linked to upthread.

I'm not sure where that leaves your argument, because "they didn't film it in colour" wouldn't be a very persuasive claim even if it were true. And it's not true.

Well, virtually all of the bombing footage appears to be in black & white. A little color appears on screen, for a few seconds. It doesn't help the case, since they could have shot 30-60 minutes of color footage, above Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

To go over the main point, again...

We must compare the A-bomb footage to other footage from 1945.

Specifically
- what is the best quality footage, both color, and b & w, taken during WWII?
- what duration of continuous footage was shot, in both color, and b & w?

Even more specifically, we can compare it to aerial footage of other cities being bombed, such as Dresden, and Berlin.


After you compare the quality, and duration - of continuous footage - of the A-bombs, to the top quality, continuous footage of the war, what do you find? No comparison.

The A-Bomb footage is chopped up into little segments, shot from different angles!!, for a few seconds each. The entire duration of footage showing the 'bombs' is about 5 seconds - for both Hiroshima, and Nagasaki!!

They knew exactly when, and where, the bombs would detonate.

They must have had their cameras pointed down towards these cities, before the actual detonations, so they'd capture the entire events, as they happened. They'd already shot footage like that, with conventional bombs, on other cities. So with their plan to document this historic event, it was a no-brainer that they'd film it from start to finish. right?

We should see an untouched city, moments before the A-bomb is detonated, just after it is detonated, and long past when the cloud has risen, into a 'mushroom'. And we should see it from several angles, as well.

Unless you think they'd take only one camera, on one plane, to film one of the most important events in human history? In fact, there should be an entire team of professionals filming this event, in several other planes. That's common sense. If one or two cameras don't work, or don't capture everything, then they'd have other cameras on hand which WOULD capture everything.

Imagine this....

General: I can't see the footage you shot.

Major: Um, well, sir...there is no footage to show you. The camera had a mechanical problem, and we couldn't fix it before the bomb went off.

General: For Pete's sake, man, don't tell me you only brought one camera?

Major: No, sir. We had another camera on another plane, too.

General: Okay, then. I'll get the other footage.

If the General finds the other footage didn't capture much of the event, that's all they have to document this monumental event.

Do you think they'd really be that stupid? Or can you grasp the issue yet?

Why would they only bring, or USE, two cameras, at most, to film these events? They wouldn't.


Do you think they forgot to point their cameras down to these cities before they were bombed? Or that they couldn't get a shot of the city before they were bombed? Nobody could film the event, before, or at the exact moment, history is made?

Who goes to Japan, to document the first A-bomb dropped on a city, and can't even show the moment it happens? Is that the same guy who forgot to film the first few seconds of the SECOND A- bomb?

Why would their footage cut out, after only 5 seconds? Think about what they want you to believe...that the cities are vaporized by these bombs.

We don't see that. The 'bombs' don't flatten the city for miles around. We hardly can even see there's a city, from the crappy footage, but whatever we see, it is still there after 5 seconds.


It's all a massive con.

OK, so if you were in charge of the atomic bomb attacks on Japan, you'd have done it differently. That's all your argument adds up to.

But I'd like to remind you that on this thread so far, you have claimed the following (in this order):

1) There was no film of the attacks at all
2) There was film but it wasn't in colour
3) There is colour film, but most of the films aren't colour.

With regard to point two, I'd like to remind you that you stated this despite the fact that the films had already been posted in this thread, meaning you hadn't even glanced at them.

I can't think of any reason why I should take anything you say at all seriously. You're just making it up as you go along, and I'll leave you to it.

In parting, I will point out that there are very good reasons why it might not be wholly advisable for a cameraman to look through a camera lens at an explosion commonly described as 'brighter than a thousand suns', which might (!) explain why the initial blast is missing from each film.

originally posted by: audubon
OK, so if you were in charge of the atomic bomb attacks on Japan, you'd have done it differently. That's all your argument adds up to.

But I'd like to remind you that on this thread so far, you have claimed the following (in this order):

1) There was no film of the attacks at all
2) There was film but it wasn't in colour
3) There is colour film, but most of the films aren't colour.

With regard to point two, I'd like to remind you that you stated this despite the fact that the films had already been posted in this thread, meaning you hadn't even glanced at them.

I can't think of any reason why I should take anything you say at all seriously. You're just making it up as you go along, and I'll leave you to it.

In parting, I will point out that there are very good reasons why it might not be wholly advisable for a cameraman to look through a camera lens at an explosion commonly described as 'brighter than a thousand suns', which might (!) explain why the initial blast is missing from each film.

The first image taken of the Sun was in 1845. People watched A-Bomb tests wearing goggles with filters, and they took footage of it. So, why should I take you seriously, when you're just making things up as you go along?

You haven't got an answer for why they didn't shoot the entire event, BOTH times.

The answer is obvious.

Many of you will refuse to ever accept it. Which is fine, but is sad. We all live in a mass media fantasy-land. Think for yourself, it's time to know their lies are holding you prisoner.


As for the 'this is what you woulost d do if you were there' argument...

That means if I show a film of flying pink elephants, it should be accepted as proof of pink elephants.
Anyone who claims that I should have captured a pink elephant to prove they exist is just saying 'this is what I would have done, if I'd been there'!!

"Doing it differently" is a lame excuse for ANYTHING, going by your argument. Nonsense.

One of mankind's most important events is not "doing it differently", because it was not even DONE. It is not at all valid.

The atomic bomb flattened two cities in Japan, back in 1945. Not bridges. It didn't seem to touch a few other buildings, either. But it flattened everything else around those invincible buildings, anyhow!

Amazing, is it not?


What made those specific buildings utterly impervious to the powerful atomic blasts?

Any idea?

In case you aren't aware, cities back then, in much of Japan, were not so modern, like most American cities were. It was wood, and leafs. Firebomb the whole city, or two...no problem!


The problem is that both cities had structures which were NOT wood. They were made of steel, and bricks.

That's why the bridges were still intact, afterwards. Steel bridges. Brick, and/or concrete buildings.

Hope nobody notices!

They filmed the Enola Gay and crew in color, before they dropped 'A-bombs' on Japan.

Apparently, they forgot to bring color cameras to film the entire event, however!!

Same as the first 'moon landing' didn't use color cameras!!


They don't seem to care about filming the greatest historical events in all human history!!


I guess they preferred filming Gilligan's Island in color, over the first manned moon landing!

Now, North Korea has nukes. Nobody has actually seen these nukes go off, however. We've seen a few rockets flying in air, so that's good enough to convince everyone... these rockets are obviously nukes!!

Anything works in a world of total idiots.

Without radiation we wouldnt be alive. With too much..byby.

a reply to: patrononice

they are real.

a family friend who is now passed was one of the MD's that was attached to these programs, interesting little factoid he treated the men in one of the first criticality accidents(the so called demon core).

later in life i was regaled with interesting science stories. So i doubt this man gave most of his life to a lie and the men that died certainly are dead.

and all one has to do to fact check this claim is to look at nuclear power, the mere fact it exists mean that a bomb can be made.

a reply to: humanoidlord
wow that is one crazy website.

a reply to: turbonium1

if you really dont think nuclear weapons exist go camping in the Polygon in Russia.

it was/is one of the most contaminated nuclear test sites on earth. and it is all fall out and corresponding isotopes so you might come back from your camping trip a little more bald and sick.


the men dropping the atomic bomb on Japan just slatured 10'000's of people along with the fact they didn't know 100% that it would work so i can excuse their non studio grade filming, not to mention they might be worried about someone in zero's coming up to meet them.

there is no conspiracy here, nuclear weapons exist.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

the craziest in the world!