Are the old nuclear bomb videos fake???

Question

The one detail I dont get is: All the camera angles seem to be soo close and right next to everything getting leveled... how do they not shake or even (what I would expect) get blown down and destroyed???

I honestly havent looked into this enough, I was just wondering if there might be some kind of conspiracy theory on the videos, and I am definately not dumb enough to have thought they had computer graphics in those days.. haha a lot of effects were recreated in movies like that with small scale models.. Im guessing the videos I have seen just looked fake because of the old camera quality.

Answer 1

They are real, and you can see the evidence yourself on google maps, if you know where to look and what to look for.

Most of the Atomic bomb footage did not turn out, the ones that did were in some sort of bunker, with enough shielding effects to protect the film. I read somewhere that the military wasted enough film to radiation exposure to film every war movie ever shot, twice! The majority of good film comes from special reconaisance cameras, that's one reason you only see such short films, they are shot at very high-speed. It was high technology back then.

One of the most dramatic images you can see on Google Maps is the capsized hull of the German Battlecruiser "Prince Eugen" in one of the atolls of the Marshall Islands, it was the battle cruiser that, with the Battleship Bismark, sank the British Heavy Cruiser Hood. It was turned over to the Allies after World War 2 and used in the Atomic bomb testing after the war. It was badly damaged by two atomic blast, (test Able and Baker) but they almost got her beached before she could sink, she capsized off the beach on the south west corner, just inside an atoll in the Marshall Islands, and her stern is mostly out of the water, it can easily be seen by satellite.

Answer 2

Nuclear blast films (not videos as they weren't yet developed) were made by many cameras with the hope at least one would survive and be useable to observe the event. Shake was the least of the problems. Heat and the overpressure blast were big problems. Actually most of the cameras were protected at the last moment by a concrete box that would come down on the camera. Worked much like the box, stick, string trap that children try to catch birds.

I knew peoply on Navy ships that were present for the first thermo nuclear blasts in the Pacific. Tsunamis were expected but did not occur. Crew was on deck and they would hose them down to rinse off radiation. The H bombs are considerably cleaner than the A bombs in general. But the early H bombs were usually just boosted A bombs and the incomplete blast very dirty.
I worked on numerous nuclear weapons from those used up to 16 MT. I really get a kick out of movie nukes using those nice red digital timers. Like yeah, nukes are made to go off at a time when they arrive at target? In the 80's there was a lot of hype about intercepting things called nuclear fuses needed to detonate an a-bomb. These were simply flash diodes. Problem here is they weren't even developed until te mid 50's. About 10 years after Trinity, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Seems regular shape charges with conventional electrical primers worked well for those. Nagasaki was a hard one. A plutonium bomb is tough to go, unlike the Hirosima that drives ath wedhe to sphere to go critical much like a gun barell.

Answer 3

They are real. You can even view many of them at the Atomic Test Museum in Las Vegas. One gentleman who photographed the film you saw lives in the area and he was a panelist at a recent seminar at the museum.
He used high resolution telefoto lenses mounted on a camera which was set up in a hardened bunker at least four miles from the point of explosion. Those houses you see being destroyed were constructed on the Nevada Test Site to see what the effect would be on the type of housing we use in the States. Most of the buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not reinforced buildings. They were flimsy wooden structures.

Answer 4

The Question Should Be "HOW Would N Korea Fake A Nuke Test ?" Seismic Evidence Would Prove A Faked Test

Answer 5

YES! Absolutely they were real. Those cameras are heavily armored, and most likely mounted on hydraulics to keep them steady as the ground rocks beneath them. Those "test" bombs weren't nearly as powerful as anything used during WWII...maybe a couple kilotons...so they'd show the scientists/military how the bombs would act when detonated without huge amounts of fallout/damage.

Answer 6

Well you don't get to see the ones that were vaporized. What you generally see were were filmed from heavily fortified bunkers, often with telephoto lenses. There are some that show some shaking including some that were filmed with hand held cameras. But why show those when you have better film?

Answer 7

Hey there,
This is a link where you can downlod for free Battleship Game: http://j.mp/ZYuyGE

Finally the full version is avaiable!
The Battleship Game World War 2 is a special naval strategy game.
It's a must have game.

Answer 8

Yes they are all fake. They had to make those films to scare you away so you you'd never find out the truth.

Hard radiation gives you a nice tan, perfect abs, a large penis. Fallout makes human brains taste absolutely delicious.

Answer 9

uh, no they're real, they didn't have computer graphics back then...most of those cars and houses or whatever are atleast a mile away from the device itself.

Answer 10

Telephoto lens in a hardened bunker.
Trust me...They are real.