Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Political Manipulation / Cover-Ups / False Flags
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 18-03-2012, 02:10 PM   #441
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 17,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdwave View Post
More complete and utter bollocks.

The gun is angled perfectly in the right direction of there the explosion happens, and even if this was hoaxed they would have angled the explosion correctly...

Because you want it to be fake you create a pathetic conclusion that the explosion is not in line with the gun...

as for the con trails they obviously appeared due to the heat of the explosion, as that's why some contrails and visible and some are not..

what they are we don't know, but only someone desperate to create this hoax claim would see that as evidence if a forged video..
???? The trails are not there until the explosion then they are - how did this happen. I will tell you how. Footage from another 'test' was overlaid on the Howitzer shot.



You see the trails are actuall smoke trails, placed in advance of the blast to measure the shock wave contour. Or so the story goes

So that footage is 100% pure FAKE
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2012, 02:17 PM   #442
thirdwave
Premier Subscribers
 
thirdwave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,023
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
The point is the ejected material (different ground colour) is clumpy, as if excavated, rather than splayed as if blown out
Yes i know what point your trying to make, but as usual it is completely ignorant to other facts you need to ignore in order to push another one of your closed minded, un provable and illogical conspiracy claims.

allow me to create a more simple example for you..

if you push a shovel in some sand, and lean it to one side, this forces a gap in the sand, but you will not just see a gap while the surface is completely smooth like the rest ... you will see the area where the gap is has been distorted and crushed a little ..

for some reason, you are trying to say that a Nuke bomb ripping apart a huge crater in the floor is not going to effect the surface around that crater.


Quote:
There are roads in the Nevada pics and also in that Somme pic. The road/crater scale ratios are similar hence the Nevada craters (apart from Sedan) are commensurate with conventional bombs/detonations
lol

I dont see a road in the large crater pic.

But there are many points you are over looking (not surprising)

first of all you can see in the Nuke test site that different size explosions took place obviously using different size nukes.

Second of all Nukes to not really create a much bigger initial explosion anyway.. they have a secondary blast which spreads out.

A nuke Creator will be deep. the one in the Somma pic does not look very deep at all.
__________________
“Perhaps you who bring this sentence against me are more afraid than I who receive it.” -Giordano Bruno

Listen & Subscribe to THA Talks
Facebook Page

Last edited by thirdwave; 18-03-2012 at 02:19 PM.
thirdwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2012, 02:24 PM   #443
thirdwave
Premier Subscribers
 
thirdwave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,023
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
???? The trails are not there until the explosion then they are - how did this happen. I will tell you how. Footage from another 'test' was overlaid on the Howitzer shot.



You see the trails are actuall smoke trails, placed in advance of the blast to measure the shock wave contour. Or so the story goes

So that footage is 100% pure FAKE

no, you see, that is just you pushing more BULLSHIT..

There are two reasons the trails would appear.

1, because contrails become visible due to the condensation and heat in the air. When the bomb goes off, this obviously effects the heat and condensation around it, hence the trails appear.

Your claim is stupid anyway as the trails are not consistent to where the explosion goes off.

2, Because the explosion creates light, which also makes the trails more visible.
__________________
“Perhaps you who bring this sentence against me are more afraid than I who receive it.” -Giordano Bruno

Listen & Subscribe to THA Talks
Facebook Page

Last edited by thirdwave; 18-03-2012 at 02:26 PM.
thirdwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2012, 02:43 PM   #444
thirdwave
Premier Subscribers
 
thirdwave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,023
Default

What I find amusing..

Is not only have you put forward nothing to back up your illogical and baseless claim..

but you have also claimed WHO hoaxed them!

lol
__________________
“Perhaps you who bring this sentence against me are more afraid than I who receive it.” -Giordano Bruno

Listen & Subscribe to THA Talks
Facebook Page
thirdwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2012, 06:23 PM   #445
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 17,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdwave View Post
no, you see, that is just you pushing more BULLSHIT..

There are two reasons the trails would appear.

1, because contrails become visible due to the condensation and heat in the air. When the bomb goes off, this obviously effects the heat and condensation around it, hence the trails appear.

Your claim is stupid anyway as the trails are not consistent to where the explosion goes off.

2, Because the explosion creates light, which also makes the trails more visible.
Here you are flat out wrong

Quote:
The question I get asked most frequently about this web site is "What are those funny lines in those pictures of nuclear tests"? This page explains what those lines are, and why they are there.
http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/...okeTrails.html

At least concede this

As for the crater - you are claiming the clumpy piles of material around the crater did not come from blast ejecta, but from ground distortion around the crater?
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2012, 08:24 PM   #446
thirdwave
Premier Subscribers
 
thirdwave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,023
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
Here you are flat out wrong



http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/...okeTrails.html

At least concede this
My word, you seem to find it impossible to post anything that is not aimed at smearing or ignoring something.

Your question was not about what the trails where, it was why they appeared after the explosion and were not visible before.

I gave you a very logical reason for why that may be... as I told you that I did not know what they were

So what is it you are saying I should concede exactly?

Quote:
As for the crater - you are claiming the clumpy piles of material around the crater did not come from blast ejecta, but from ground distortion around the crater?
Like you, I am no expert on Massive explosions or Nuclear explosions. I just could spot that you were talking shit and trying to smear the perception of the photo to pretend that it was manually created.

You did not make sense, so I highlighted the reason why.

The way I see it if a huge crater has split open the ground and created a crater, then the ground around it would usually be effected in some way and that this would also be visible.. I guess the fresher the crater the more visible the distortion would be.
__________________
“Perhaps you who bring this sentence against me are more afraid than I who receive it.” -Giordano Bruno

Listen & Subscribe to THA Talks
Facebook Page
thirdwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2012, 08:45 PM   #447
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 17,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdwave View Post
My word, you seem to find it impossible to post anything that is not aimed at smearing or ignoring something.

Your question was not about what the trails where, it was why they appeared after the explosion and were not visible before.

I gave you a very logical reason for why that may be... as I told you that I did not know what they were

So what is it you are saying I should concede exactly? visible.. I guess the fresher the crater the more visible the distortion would be.
Look

The trails are SMOKE (like Red Arrows) used to mark the contours of a blast - this is official info. Smoke does not suddenly appear like that. What you were watching was a cut scene
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2012, 09:25 PM   #448
thirdwave
Premier Subscribers
 
thirdwave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,023
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
Look

The trails are SMOKE (like Red Arrows) used to mark the contours of a blast - this is official info. Smoke does not suddenly appear like that. What you were watching was a cut scene
LOL

Ok, when there is no blast the smoke trails do not appear to be visible to the camera lens. However, when the explosion takes place, you can clearly see that the trails a slowly picked up by the lens due to the light from the blast and maybe also down to the heat making the trails more visible..

The fact that the trails also fade out after the blast and become almost not visible again emphasizes this point further, if you are as intelligent and well educated as you claim, you will clearly understand this point.

Another point that highlights your bullshit attempt is that such a mistake would be unnecessary anyway as they could have quite easily over laid the films during the blast when it was very bright, meaning the trails would have appeared before and after the blast, keeping you happy.

Clearly its a case of the trails not being picked up by the lens and when the light is a great deal lighter it does, and then as the light fades, the trails also fade..

The video is not hoaxed, you just need it to be.

Nukes are real, they exists, always have done, and are probably not even at the top of WOMD list. And they were not created by Jews and most certainly not Hoaxed by them.
__________________
“Perhaps you who bring this sentence against me are more afraid than I who receive it.” -Giordano Bruno

Listen & Subscribe to THA Talks
Facebook Page

Last edited by thirdwave; 18-03-2012 at 09:27 PM.
thirdwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2012, 06:48 AM   #449
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 17,058
Default

3rd - You could have built a stronger case for nukes by observing for instance the nature of the stratiations inside the Sedan crater. Here you can see rock strata peeping out from the smooth sweep of soil, with trailing edges from promentories that are oriented outwards, suggesting a force from below. This is something I am already studying.

However the smoke trails issue - WHICH IS NOT IN DOUBT - you continue to dispute with this argument

Quote:
Ok, when there is no blast the smoke trails do not appear to be visible to the camera lens. However, when the explosion takes place, you can clearly see that the trails a slowly picked up by the lens due to the light from the blast and maybe also down to the heat making the trails more visible..
This is the film we are talking about


The film is shot in daylight, so how come the trails are invisible 'til the blast? Oh - and they do not 'almost fade out' as you claimed. Plus really if you think that gun angle can produce the impact shown well I despair for your personal model of reality.

Last edited by rodin; 19-03-2012 at 06:49 AM.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2012, 10:57 AM   #450
thirdwave
Premier Subscribers
 
thirdwave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,023
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
3rd - You could have built a stronger case for nukes by observing for instance the nature of the stratiations inside the Sedan crater. Here you can see rock strata peeping out from the smooth sweep of soil, with trailing edges from promentories that are oriented outwards, suggesting a force from below. This is something I am already studying.
Well maybe you should have studied it more before you started to make baseless claims that the crate was manually created other than by a Nuke.

Quote:
However the smoke trails issue - WHICH IS NOT IN DOUBT - you continue to dispute with this argument
You are simply refusing to except how you have had to be quite un observant while pretending you are being very observant, because you have tried to make a bullshit claim about the video and now I have pointed out why the video is not at all suspicious you are even being ignorant to my points.





Quote:
This is the film we are talking about

Nuclear Howitzer - YouTube

The film is shot in daylight, so how come the trails are invisible 'til the blast? Oh - and they do not 'almost fade out' as you claimed. Plus really if you think that gun angle can produce the impact shown well I despair for your personal model of reality.
First of all your ridiculous claim about the gun not lining up is just a stupid straw man claim, and its not a case of you despairing its just a case of you knowing that your claim is complete bollocks. the gun points in the direction of the blast, and you do not have a good enough view of the angle for you to make such a claim.

And yes I am fully aware this is the film we are talking about.
And yes the film is shot in day light.

And I have already explained why the trails are invisible till the blast. (or at least why they do not seem to be visible to the camera lens)

Cameras need light to pic up on detail this video is clearly not the most modern video and anyone can see its not the most detailed video... If you get a video in a place with not a lot of light and then light a lighter near the lens you will see it pic up on more detail. Not to mention that it seems you only get a couple seconds of a clear shot of that area anyway as its quickly covered by smoke from the gun shot which again would not help the lens.

And you are lying about them not almost fading out..

Here
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 1.jpg (8.9 KB, 38 views)
File Type: jpg 2.jpg (9.9 KB, 38 views)
File Type: jpg 3.jpg (10.4 KB, 38 views)
File Type: jpg 4.jpg (10.3 KB, 38 views)
__________________
“Perhaps you who bring this sentence against me are more afraid than I who receive it.” -Giordano Bruno

Listen & Subscribe to THA Talks
Facebook Page
thirdwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 11:27 PM   #451
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 17,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdwave View Post
Well maybe you should have studied it more before you started to make baseless claims that the crate was manually created other than by a Nuke.

You are simply refusing to except how you have had to be quite un observant while pretending you are being very observant, because you have tried to make a bullshit claim about the video and now I have pointed out why the video is not at all suspicious you are even being ignorant to my points.







First of all your ridiculous claim about the gun not lining up is just a stupid straw man claim, and its not a case of you despairing its just a case of you knowing that your claim is complete bollocks. the gun points in the direction of the blast, and you do not have a good enough view of the angle for you to make such a claim.

And yes I am fully aware this is the film we are talking about.
And yes the film is shot in day light.

And I have already explained why the trails are invisible till the blast. (or at least why they do not seem to be visible to the camera lens)

Cameras need light to pic up on detail this video is clearly not the most modern video and anyone can see its not the most detailed video... If you get a video in a place with not a lot of light and then light a lighter near the lens you will see it pic up on more detail. Not to mention that it seems you only get a couple seconds of a clear shot of that area anyway as its quickly covered by smoke from the gun shot which again would not help the lens.

And you are lying about them not almost fading out..

Here
Why don't you show the frames before the bomb goes off, for comparison?
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 11:40 PM   #452
thirdwave
Premier Subscribers
 
thirdwave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,023
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
Why don't you show the frames before the bomb goes off, for comparison?
Hu? , why would I?

It is not being disputed that the Lens was not picking up the trails prior to the bomb going off... so why would i need to send a pic to prove something no one is disputing?, You say stuff like that as a smoke screen to make it look like I am hiding something, which Im not.

You said that the trails did not almost fade out as the light from the bomb faded... As I pointed out.

I have shown that you are wrong..

It would have been interesting for the scene to have been longer as I think when the bomb blast totally faded, the lens would have again not picked up the trails, as you can clearly see the trails fade as the light from the bomb does, as my images prove.

I have no idea why you said they did not fade.
__________________
“Perhaps you who bring this sentence against me are more afraid than I who receive it.” -Giordano Bruno

Listen & Subscribe to THA Talks
Facebook Page
thirdwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2012, 11:49 PM   #453
flyermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: back on the DIF
Posts: 7,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bikerdruid View Post
he isn't.
I know he's not going to show us any calculations on anything... first because he hasn't done any calculations; and second, because he couldn't have done any even if he wanted to.

Sorry Rodin... you have never provided any evidence that remotely proves any photograph is fake, nor any evidence that conventional explosives could have done the crates near Vegas.

For me, this theory gets an F-.... and I'm being generous.

Last edited by flyermay; 21-03-2012 at 03:22 AM.
flyermay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-2012, 10:09 PM   #454
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 17,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdwave View Post
Hu? , why would I?

It is not being disputed that the Lens was not picking up the trails prior to the bomb going off...
Well STFU then. Because the 'blast' did not suddenly make previously laid down smoke trails visible.

Just HOW could it happen like you stupidly claim?
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-2012, 10:12 PM   #455
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 17,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdwave View Post
I have no idea why you said they did not fade.
Because they don't. They are present over all 4 frames. Not one frame shows them 'disappeared' - apart from every frame BEFORE the (snigger) 'NUKE SHELL BLAST' lol
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2012, 07:49 AM   #456
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 17,058
Default

Watch to end

rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2012, 08:03 AM   #457
jon galt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: OZ
Posts: 3,179
Default

In regards to the quality of film of nuclear tests it must be taken in to account that multiple cameras were used due to the fact that many would be destroyed in the blast or the intensity of the blast would would ruin much of the usable footage. What did survive was edited in to a film.

Also the higher quality film was due to using high speed camera specifically developed to handle the conditions and record the blast (which was over in seconds) in detail. The high speed cameras took only one picture each and when set up in series could be edited in to film. Similar set ups are still used in modern high speed photography.

The film was not just for show it was also for scientific research on the effects of the blast. Many were not available at the time and have since been declassified

third wave also raises possable camera issues. cameras and editing software (there was no software in the early days)was no where near what it is today.

more info http://www.damninteresting.com/rapat...r-photographs/

Rodin claims that mass can not be transformed in to energy. Energy to mass conversion is demonstratively shown to be true by the suns nuclear fusion process. unless he believes that the sun is also a hoax.(most probably a Jewish one at that)

the op asserts that all nuclear technology and all nuclear disasters have been faked such as Chernobyl, 3 mile island , Fukushima and the nuclear bomb attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

neutrons, gamma rays, beta particles, and alpha particles are detected following a disaster or detonation. These particle are given of by high energy events ie a nuclear explosion.

there is also the issue of nuclear waste and the decommissioning centers IE Dounreay in Scotland which on occasions released nuclear particles in to the environment

It is also claimed that that the massive damage to both Nagasaki and Hiroshima was caused with conventional explosive, when the fact is the Americans had been bombing both cities with conventional explosives for months with no where near the same effect.The same as every country in the war. No city suffered this much damage let alone with in the time frame A contaminated bomb would not produce the high energy particles.

the sizes of the mushroom could not be created by conventional explosives



tsar bomb the cloud is 56km high at a distance of 16okm.

Then there is the massive creators and even areas where the sand has been turned to glass under intense heat and pressure. There is physical evidence off this.

America even blew part of bikini island up in a hydrogen bomb test. The biggest h bomb was tested by the soviets. The tsar'bombs shock wave was measured on its third time round the earth, this was the recorded by independent monitoring stations.

not to mention all the witnesses including the many victims of the bombings and accidents with injures such as radiation burns. All this is more than documented.

Also because i find this interesting here an article about how occasionally nature can produce atomic blasts and even nuclear reactors (not the obvious one like a star): as certain isotopes of uranium/plutonium are needed it is an unlikely event. However these isotopes do exist naturally albeit in small amounts. what increases their rarity is the fact that they can undergo nuclear reactions inside the pressures of the earth.

__________________
To be clear I don't care if you believe fmotl theory. I don't particularly care if you manage to convince anyone of it either. What I do care about is when people are confronted by such nonsense [fmotl theory] they should at least have access to the alternative, in order to make an informed decision.

Last edited by jon galt; 22-03-2012 at 11:55 AM.
jon galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2012, 11:43 PM   #458
ranb
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WA, USA
Posts: 304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
Watch to end
That video is an excellent example of how to convince people that you have no idea what you are talking about. A sixth grade class on critical thinking could rip it to shreds.

The person that narrated the video has no idea about video editing, use of lens filters or military explosives (the US military did not use dynamite for large bombs in WWII). I felt sorry for him unless it was intended as satire or a joke.

Ranb
ranb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2012, 11:46 PM   #459
cwl3
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranb View Post
That video is an excellent example of how to convince people that you have no idea what you are talking about. A sixth grade class on critical thinking could rip it to shreds.

The person that narrated the video has no idea about video editing, use of lens filters or military explosives (the US military did not use dynamite for large bombs in WWII). I felt sorry for him unless it was intended as satire or a joke.

Ranb
This was my suspicion, although I had no proof. Maybe shows how instincts should be listened to.
cwl3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2012, 12:04 AM   #460
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 17,058
Default

Galt

Is matter created or destroyed during a chemical explosion? Of course not. Electrons move to less energetic orbits, releasing energy

I am not saying fission/fusion etc do not take place. I am saying that all that is happening is nuclear chemistry

BTW - yea - this is a real bomb...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=LxD44HO8dNQ


Last edited by rodin; 23-03-2012 at 12:14 AM.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:18 AM.