i heard it looked exactly like it had been firebombed
i also saw pictures of 'plumb of smoke' from multiple angles.. somehow the plane actually flew around the none-moving plumb of smoke to take the photos that we have.
below is the nuke scare vid from the 50s .. it is clearly a production designed to produce maximum scare..
none of the shots below appear to be 'outside' .. just like seeing the moon landing crap, there is no space visible in any pictures/videos of the moon, only black space. they appear isolated because they are
When I was younger watching these videos I saw the destructive power of nukes... Now all i see is little house dioramas being blasted with compressed air...
No. You don't leave flash shadows on walls from people who have been vaporized, in a firebombing. (My father was in Nagasaki.) And it takes a raid of hundreds of bombers to fire-bomb a city.
The plane flew across the bombed city and got the hell away. The photo of the mushroom cloud was taken from the the forward compartment or tail gun position on the bomber. They may have yawed temporarily to obtain a line of sight.
The "nuke scare" video was footage from a real test. The darkness of the image was because the camera was stopped down to prevent the film from being overexposed from the nuclear flash. (There are no stars visible in the Moon shots for the same reason; the brightly lit Moon surface would have exposed all the film if it had been stopped open enough to image the stars.)
The other comments:
The houses are all full scale real construction. No models would have such minute detail and show such detailed air flows. Why make scale models when the point was to find out how things behaved in real life? You have falsehood on the brain.
The camera was mounted in a sufficiently sturdy enclosure. Perhaps a concrete embrasure or a tank bolted to a ground pad. That part was not rocket science. And the camera was not pointed at the blast, so nothing would have vaporized the lens. (Other camera shots have taken frontal views of the detonations without problems.)
The pics from the moon have a dark space background because the light from the lunar surface exposes the film well before the much less bright stars can. Let's shut down the 'didn't go to the moon" nonsense.
Daddy said it was not and there was no firestorm there. He said Tokyo looked a lot worse. He and other sailors from his ship walked all over and were told nothing about dangers of radiation. He bought a set of china from some local guy by the side of the road and sent it to his mother. It never arrived. I'm sure someone ran a geiger counter over it and dumped over the side of the ship.
We were shown films, we didn't have videos back then, at school and they were the opposite - designed to convince us we could actually survive a nuclear bomb on DC. We were about 20 miles from DC as the crow flies. Things like what to do if you're walking on a golf course and see the flash. (Hide in a ditch. No, really.) We also had drills to practice hiding under our desks - super nuclear protection there - and drills to walk home from school and time how many minutes it took. We were told during a nuclear attack to walk straight home and shove wadded up newspapers in our chimneys. Are you getting the idea? This was all to convince children that they would be just fine if a DC was bombed. I'm surprised they didn't tell us to use umbrellas.
None of this helped when, during the Cuban missile crisis, our teacher cried all day, telling us we were all going to die that night when the bombs hit DC. See, you young whippersnappers don't have a monopoly on crazy teachers.
i heard it looked exactly like it had been firebombed
i also saw pictures of 'plumb of smoke' from multiple angles.. somehow the plane actually flew around the none-moving plumb of smoke to take the photos that we have.
below is the nuke scare vid from the 50s .. it is clearly a production designed to produce maximum scare..
none of the shots below appear to be 'outside' .. just like seeing the moon landing crap, there is no space visible in any pictures/videos of the moon, only black space. they appear isolated because they are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMopb1eN2t4
When I was younger watching these videos I saw the destructive power of nukes... Now all i see is little house dioramas being blasted with compressed air...
I wonder what the camera housing was made of to not move at all during the blast.
And to keep the glass in the camera lens from vaporizing like the windows
No. You don't leave flash shadows on walls from people who have been vaporized, in a firebombing. (My father was in Nagasaki.) And it takes a raid of hundreds of bombers to fire-bomb a city.
The plane flew across the bombed city and got the hell away. The photo of the mushroom cloud was taken from the the forward compartment or tail gun position on the bomber. They may have yawed temporarily to obtain a line of sight.
The "nuke scare" video was footage from a real test. The darkness of the image was because the camera was stopped down to prevent the film from being overexposed from the nuclear flash. (There are no stars visible in the Moon shots for the same reason; the brightly lit Moon surface would have exposed all the film if it had been stopped open enough to image the stars.)
The other comments:
The houses are all full scale real construction. No models would have such minute detail and show such detailed air flows. Why make scale models when the point was to find out how things behaved in real life? You have falsehood on the brain.
The camera was mounted in a sufficiently sturdy enclosure. Perhaps a concrete embrasure or a tank bolted to a ground pad. That part was not rocket science. And the camera was not pointed at the blast, so nothing would have vaporized the lens. (Other camera shots have taken frontal views of the detonations without problems.)
The pics from the moon have a dark space background because the light from the lunar surface exposes the film well before the much less bright stars can. Let's shut down the 'didn't go to the moon" nonsense.
Even the “astronauts” couldn’t agree on if stars were visible from the moon or not during a press conference following the “historic accomplishment.”
Oh and telemetry data lost.. honk!
Nukes are probably fake otherwise we would have seen one by now. Hydrogen bombs on the other hand…
Anyone who believes in the moon landing is not thinking or a kek
I don't believe the movie they made for us, but I think we do go there.
If the moon landing was so real do it again.
Never happened
No! As new people come over to this side we WANT them to think we're completely batshit crazy, flat-earth, chemtrail, numerology-believing freaks.
Daddy said it was not and there was no firestorm there. He said Tokyo looked a lot worse. He and other sailors from his ship walked all over and were told nothing about dangers of radiation. He bought a set of china from some local guy by the side of the road and sent it to his mother. It never arrived. I'm sure someone ran a geiger counter over it and dumped over the side of the ship.
We were shown films, we didn't have videos back then, at school and they were the opposite - designed to convince us we could actually survive a nuclear bomb on DC. We were about 20 miles from DC as the crow flies. Things like what to do if you're walking on a golf course and see the flash. (Hide in a ditch. No, really.) We also had drills to practice hiding under our desks - super nuclear protection there - and drills to walk home from school and time how many minutes it took. We were told during a nuclear attack to walk straight home and shove wadded up newspapers in our chimneys. Are you getting the idea? This was all to convince children that they would be just fine if a DC was bombed. I'm surprised they didn't tell us to use umbrellas.
None of this helped when, during the Cuban missile crisis, our teacher cried all day, telling us we were all going to die that night when the bombs hit DC. See, you young whippersnappers don't have a monopoly on crazy teachers.