THE NUKE HOAX

Global War deceptions & mass manipulation, fear-mongering terror schemes and propaganda in the Age of the Bomb
Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by Farcevalue »

Bing may well have been the soundtrack for WWII:
During World War II (and for several years after), Bing Crosby was just about the biggest popular entertainer the USA has ever known: he was the #1 actor at the movie box office, the #1 recording artist in the world and the hosted the top-rated radio show in America. It’s like he was peak Tom Cruise, peak Michael Jackson and peak Johnny Carson all at the same time.

A big reason for that success was the song “White Christmas,” a throwaway tune from the 1942 movie Holiday Inn that became the biggest record of all time and a poignant reminder of home for millions of troops stationed overseas during World War II. People remember Bing’s movie partner Bob Hope for his tours to entertain the troops, but no one did more than Crosby to promote the war effort in the Forties.
http://undertheradar.military.com/2014/ ... ii-legacy/
ProperGander
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by ProperGander »

There's plenty of World War Two era newsreels online. A lot of them seem to have issues with things like parallax and atmospheric resistance. Bombs dropped from bombers tend to act as if there was no atmosphere. Other clips show the bombs dropping back as expected. Most of them look like composites of one kind or another. Makes me wonder if any of what we are shown on screen is real. Whatever happened wasn't broadcast. 911 was nothing new.
ProperGander
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by ProperGander »

Hollywood is the Military Industrial (Entertainment) Complex.
Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by Critical Mass »

ProperGander wrote:There's plenty of World War Two era newsreels online. A lot of them seem to have issues with things like parallax and atmospheric resistance. Bombs dropped from bombers tend to act as if there was no atmosphere. Other clips show the bombs dropping back as expected. Most of them look like composites of one kind or another. Makes me wonder if any of what we are shown on screen is real.
Please provide evidence to back up your opinions.

Do you have a newsreel in particular you'd like to discuss?
ProperGander
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by ProperGander »

One thing to consider when viewing combat footage. The camera seems to stay in focus. Background objects seem to be at one focal length and the foreground objects in another. Objects should appear to go into and out of focus. How can it look so perfect? Even with autofocus there would be moments of moving objects getting out of focus. Wouldn't a quick pan cause a problem with the focus of the lens? And then there's how these films were taken. Where is the camera supposed to be in some of these aerial shots?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGLgZ8htLI4
At 1.21 bombs fall back as expected


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At64hi_3894
At 1.20 bombs fall straight down and move with plane as if no atmosphere was present.

Then there's the bombing of Dresden.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGcO6zZ4MRM
Starts at 0.25.

I think this might be veering off topic.
Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by Critical Mass »

ProperGander wrote:I think this might be veering off topic.
Yep... I think that Dresden footage is from a game or something.

However it does give me a good segue into making a minor observation.

As far as I can tell, in seventy years, not one of the 'Nuclear capable' nations have produced a film where an object (a falling bomb, a missile warhead, a tower, a balloon) is the source of the explosion we then see.

They might show an object... but then always cut to a new angle. For a typical example of this watch the 'falling nuclear bomb' at 20:40 here.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzfGl9LAgH4

At the very least a new researcher to this topic must ask themselves... what evidence do we really have that they've ever been able to miniaturize these things they allegedly created?
ProperGander
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by ProperGander »

What video game do you think the Dresden clip is from? Its not a sourced clip so I'm really curious where it comes from.
Should my post be moved? I'd like it to be where it belongs.
I've sat though hours of military footage and can tell you allot of it is not very convincing.

It seems that the Atomic Bomb myth is just that. It is promoted to spread the twin notions of fear and evil. We the masses should live in fear of the big bad government who is crazy enough to not only fire bomb Dresden, but atomize cities in Japan.
Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by Critical Mass »

ProperGander wrote:What video game do you think the Dresden clip is from?
Who knows, but as you point out the animation is totally unsourced.

It ain't from a newsreel, it's not from a stockfootage site, it's not from a documentary or a national archive. Without a known source I really wouldn't worry about it.
ProperGander
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by ProperGander »

Nobody wants credit for the shoddy production. ;)
If I can trace it, I will post the source in the appropriate area of the forum.

In terms of the Atomic Bomb, I'd point to an interview where Nikola Tesla scoffs at the notion of releasing energy from an atom. Seemed crazy the first time I read it, now not so much. When one reads into this particular subject one finds he had reason to say what he did. The problem we have trying to understand the scientists of the late 19th century, is that we need to read all the works they had read. Without understanding the context of nuclear energy, atoms, electrons and all the rest, it gets very confusing and one is easily misled. Mainstream physics has a tendency to ignore things like the gaseous medium that surrounds us all, when it suits them. Or so it seems to me. I don't want to offend anyone with my observation.
ProperGander
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by ProperGander »

How they'd manage to drop the Atom Bomb with any precision?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuRPP0r ... freload=10

If one goes to 1:14 in the above clip. You will see a dozen bombs falling and moving along with the plane, as if in a vacuum. If there is air around the wings in order to provide lift, there must be air to resist the dropped bombs. Or so it seems to me. If it works like this, how could one site a target? And what happened to all the air? The film is a product of the U.S. Army. it claims the scenes were made under operational conditions by the combat camera unit.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

At the time of World War II, there was a top-secret military device (that had to be guarded by hand guns) which was escorted in and out of bomber vehicles for bomb raids. Once installed, it made placing bombs from high heights, in precise fashion, almost effortless.

It was able to calculate a number of factors using gyroscopes and other tilting technologies (a bit like you can find in a modern video game controller) to figure out where to place a bomb directly where you aimed its reticule, compensating for the airplane's speed and height and wind factors. I don't think it's so difficult with technology from that time; it was just a matter of building it. War industry gave them that excuse. I will try to find citation for this, but for now of course, I don't expect you to believe me — I know it's my job to find this information and put it up.

This is why I don't believe for a second the elaborate stories about "misplaced" American missiles blowing up civilian hospitals in the 1990's — blowing up women and children as acts of terrorism and war. Of course, mistakes do happen, and nowhere are the mistakes more gloriously embarrassing as the ones in the military (as we've pointed out in all the 9/11 mistakes they'd love to claim as 'deliberate' — Ha!). But I think any well-publicized "mistake" story shouldn't be assumed as such, if it can even be assumed to contain any kind of legitimate information at all. If we can't check the source of the information, we've got to learn to wonder why! I believe, unfortunately, that some of the 'mistakes' are bragging stories about psychological (and physical) attacks, of course framed in precise and calculated fashion for public release.
ProperGander
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by ProperGander »

Great explanation. I'm suspicious of 'top secret tech' but that's very good and I'm not going to dispute what I know nothing about. I can only tell you what I see in the footage that is said to be real and why I make the claims I make. Sometimes 'top secret' explanations make little sense when investigated further. Obviously its an easy way to hand wave away actual problems with what one is selling to the public.

That doesn't explain the bombs falling with the moving plane in some World War Two footage and some falling back, relative to the moving plane in other official footage. People jumping from planes fall back, do they not? Should we not expect the dropping bombs to have some sort of reaction with the surrounding medium? The air that would be pushing one's hand back when one put it out the window of the B-17 traveling at a top speed of 287 mph.
Assuming its traveling less than its top speed, should its speed not be sufficient to at least equal if not exceed a hurricane wind? A wind which at its slowest is on the order of 70 mph.
The dropped bomb is very small relative to the environment it is being dropped into. One would also expect to see it turn to present its broad side to the medium. It is not being shot forward out of a barrel like a bullet. It is being dropped into the relative moving air and that is a different thing. If there were no atmosphere the bomb falls while continuing to move with its initial horizontal velocity as there is no medium to slow it down. Look into ballistic physics (IIRC) for more about this. The physics of objects in motion in a gravity field, is one of the reasons why the model for orbiting space stations is flawed. Ballistics and centrifugal equations explain why energy would be needed for an object to stay in orbit. But that is a post for another time and topic.

We can go by what we are told and we can go by what were are shown. We can see things with our own eyes. I'm not disputing secret technology. I am stating that the footage shows signs of being art and not reality. Nobody has to agree with that. But there are clear patterns to these 'historical' events.

Most of what we know about everything is from the media in one of its many forms. The University itself, is one of those forms. Most people go through life never questioning what they learned in a text book or saw on TV. Most of what we take to be true is due to literal programming. Television, film and all the history shows only reinforce the mainstream narrative in one form or another. Its learning by associating a picture with a voice over telling us what to think.

The story we are told is one about crazed mad men projecting power around the globe. A world defined for us by every globe and map we've been shown. How many of us can claim to have circled the Earth? We've seen NASA do it. ;) Does that mean its true? How do any of us know much more than what we've seen from a jet plane window? Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming I know the Earth is really a toroid or anything like that. Just making a point.

So I think it wise to question everything and to look (with the sound off) at what we have been sold as real.
MsQ
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:40 am

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by MsQ »

That clip is so silly, I had to log in!

I'm laying in bed with my laptop at an odd angle, and the lower half of the Vimeo box was also hidden by the Vimeo bar the first time I watched it. I was only really focussing on the upper part of the scene, expecting to see an explosion. Other than the reflection, I just saw clouds moving very quickly. With just a few seconds of viewing left, I realised that the clouds were meant to be part of the explosion :lol:
Interestingly, I did a search for the Tegea lens and found on the NASA page that a Tegea, though maybe not exactly the same model, was used to film cloud cover in 1967.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experime ... 67-080A-01

There is a tecnique, Zoptics illusion / frontal projection effect, which possibly might be a reason for there to be a reflection if they blended 2 separate scenes together. It seems to me that the "explosion clouds" are projected over the explosion / mushroom cloud footage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_projection_effect

I love how the rest of the footage is put together, are the people in goggles even outside? :D

Edited twice, because the image I was replying to isn't in the post and I was trying to add it, but have failed.
simonshack wrote:
FrenchAtomTest_TEUEA_01.PNG
Last edited by MsQ on Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ProperGander
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by ProperGander »

After watching hours and hours of old newsreels and cable documentaries on weapons of war, I’ve come to the conclusion that allot of it is absolutely absurd.
All of the talking heads are obviously coached and performing for the cameras. We are so conditioned by television to think this normal, we forget its not.
I have sat through hours of corporate videos and people do not act like this on camera. Normal people everyday folk do not. Those trained in public speaking and actors who are coached do act like this. I know, someone will come up with some explanation to put one back to sleep- there's always a "Columbo-like" excuse.

The techniques they use when speaking, are designed to manipulate you into thinking they are experts- they are not- they are reading from a script. Heavily edited video is shown. A voice over and interview tells you what to think. Critical judgement goes out the window. And you do not see how fake the footage is. Or how stupid the logic behind the tactics and strategy.

If what was shown in theaters back in the 1940’s as news was real, they’d have shown you how to conduct war. Does that really make sense? Would the Department of War want to show you how its done?

Its all been filmed in a Hollywood back lot or at Pinewood Studios. IMDB “H.G. Wells -Things to Come” “2001” “Superman-The Motion Picture”. Same special effects guy Wally Veevers made you believe a man could fly. He is uncredited for "Things To Come".

They could have 'made you believe a man could fly" in 1902.

This is Veevers IMBD: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0891764/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr32

Zoran Perisic also worked on both 2001 and Superman.

See how the magic trick has worked? Hollywood has been telling us the secret for years. A clue here and there. Civilization is The Matrix. Ironman 3, Watchmen And Birdman give one a sense of how it works- a blending of fact and fantasy, where does one begin and one end? Get the joke? Centuries of lies and deception. The work of the dark side of the force. Jedi mind tricks. you see the 'droids' Darth Vader wants, but are told they are the wrong ones. Realize too that the whole 'court' system is another 'game' and things like the Treaty of Paris and the U.S. Constitution are part of the illusion as well. Court indicates game and rules. Make your own rules. Declare yourself Independent. Take back your rights and your consent. ;) We are not party to contracts we didn't sign, last I checked. The world is really bound by contract, and yet we are told to think 'treaty' as if it was something different.


http://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Artic ... erman.aspx
Last edited by ProperGander on Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
ProperGander
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: THE NUKE HOAX

Unread post by ProperGander »

ProperGander wrote:After watching hours and hours of old newsreels and cable documentaries on weapons of war, I’ve come to the conclusion that allot of it is absolutely absurd.
All of the talking heads are obviously coached and performing for the cameras. We are so conditioned by television to think this normal, we forget its not.
I have sat through hours of corporate videos and people do not act like this on camera. Normal people everyday folk do not. Those trained in public speaking and actors who are coached do act like this. I know, someone will come up with some explanation to put one back to sleep- there's always a "Columbo-like" excuse.

The techniques they use when speaking, are designed to manipulate you into thinking they are experts- they are not- they are reading from a script. Heavily edited video is shown. A voice over and interview tells you what to think. Critical judgement goes out the window. And you do not see how fake the footage is. Or how stupid the logic behind the tactics and strategy.

If what was shown in theaters back in the 1940’s as news was real, they’d have shown you how to conduct war. Does that really make sense? Would the Department of War want to show you how its done?

Its all been filmed in a Hollywood back lot or at Pinewood Studios. IMDB “H.G. Wells -Things to Come” “2001” “Superman-The Motion Picture”. Same special effects guy Wally Veevers made you believe a man could fly. He is uncredited for "Things To Come".

They could have 'made you believe a man could fly" in 1902.

This is Veevers IMBD: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0891764/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr32

Zoran Perisic also worked on both 2001 and Superman.

See how the magic trick has worked? Hollywood has been telling us the secret for years. A clue here and there. Civilization is The Matrix. Ironman 3, Watchmen And Birdman give one a sense of how it works- a blending of fact and fantasy, where does one begin and one end? Get the joke? Centuries of lies and deception. The work of the dark side of the force. Jedi mind tricks. you see the 'droids' Darth Vader wants, but are told they are the wrong ones. Realize too that the whole 'court' system is another 'game' and things like the Treaty of Paris and the U.S. Constitution are part of the illusion as well. Court indicates game and rules. Make your own rules. Declare yourself Independent. Take back your rights and your consent. ;) We are not party to contracts we didn't sign, last I checked. The world is really bound by contract, and yet we are told to think 'treaty' as if it was something different.


http://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Artic ... erman.aspx

Don't like self-quoting (or quoting at all) but I think it important to make sure the information was presented accurately. I had made mistakes with the earlier version of this post. What is above is correct and includes two important links.

Wally Veevers did work on the H.G. Wells film, but was not credited, as per his IMDB page, linked above. The H.G. Wells film shows us what is to come for London and Britain in general, just a few years later... as if he knew... or more likely as if someone 're-made' it and showed it on screens as reality. Well, someone might ask, what about 'so and so', who claimed that they were "there when the bombs fell"? 911 I say. It shows us the way. Always remember its BULL because its "Bull-oni". Watch some of that H.G.Wells film. Is it not a dress rehearsal for 'what was to come'? Seem familiar? "They" should not have done 911. And then Sandyhook and Boston and then they should not have shoved it in all of our faces. Someone clearly wants us awake. How could they not see we can see them now? Our eyes can see Saturn's single dumb eye. Its CBS. And all the rest. And its as plain as day. Big Brother is being (and has always been) watched by us literally and we did not know it. ;)

I want to clarify something as well.

The harness used to create the illusion of Superman flying might have been new. The way they made Christopher Reeve look flying was probably the achievement they claim. We really can't say. Surely models have been rigged with wires in some manner prior to this. And this is more a question of the kinds of maneuvers Superman needs to execute, rather than selling the illusion he is flying overhead like a bird or a plane. Planes and bombs and ships at sea do not need to look and move like a man in a cape does.

Front projection is one technique that can be used to composite an object or person into a scene. Another way it to matte the figure out of each frame of film. By hand one can paint out the foreground object or person from the background. This was shown to us in the 1902 in Le Voyage Dans la Lune or A Trip to the Moon. This person would be the 'matte painter'. In other words, its deceptive to say 'front screen projection' was the only way to achieve the effect. Children make instructional videos that they post online, showing how some of this is done with easily available software. The modern tools are nothing more than computer versions of things you could pretty much do over a hundred years ago in a dark room.

"Its only a model"
http://galeon.com/traditionalfx4/diamonds.html

http://stanley_kubrick.enacademic.com/221/Veevers,_Wally
(Keep in mind, rear projection was one choice. A more difficult one was matte painting. And they could have got the shot to look more realistic. That too is a choice. They didn't want the special effects in the fictional work to be as good as what was presented as NEWS)

I think this presents a pretty decent picture of how the media had been manipulated in the 20th Century. I think the shoddy and obvious Space-X and other poorly executed work a result of the proliferation of computer technology in this area. They still use models, (virtual or not) but the editing and compositing is done on computer. Everyone is a special effects person now and perhaps its easier and cheaper to use young military officer types, who lack the skill and are easily misled. Just some speculation. Or they want us to know. I think some of those 'behind the curtain' do.

Screens with the power of the 'cloud' are the proverbial Pandora's Box. The last thing to come out of it is happening NOW.

"Brothers and sisters, Children of the Sun, wake up. Spread the WORD." :) someone said something like this once


•as for one eye imagery: One eye is used to peer through the telescope used to navigate. One eye is closed when the artists draws a scene in perspective. A film makers uses one eye to peer through the camera. And of course the camera lens is one big dumb eye.
Post Reply