Pentagon’s Recent Release of Bikini Nuke Footage Raises Even More Doubts
By - August 10, 2016

To commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the first Bikini Atoll nuclear tests, the nonprofit National Security Archive has published declassified footage of the Able and Baker “shots” in the summer of 1946.   –Maritime Executive

These new photos and films of the Bikini Atoll atom bomb blast seem artifical.

The most obvious, apparent fakery can be seen in the “Baker” atom-bomb test, HERE. The nuclear blast emerges from the water (the bomb was some 30 meters down) and looks exactly like other images of nuclear explosions.

It doesn’t seem hampered by the water at all. The plumes are the same, the smoke is the same.

But it gets even stranger. The bomb goes off with a tremendous explosion, but the ships around the explosion don’t seem to move. They don’t even rock back and forth.

Finally the wave from the blast overcomes some of them and after that the results are hidden.

Why would a bomb of that magnitude detonate without having an immediate impact on the ships around it?

Due to the shockwave, shouldn’t have been flung backward as soon as the bomb detonated?

Instead they just float until the waves actually overcome them.

Is the film in slow motion? Or parts of it?

We asked Anders Björkman for his reaction. We don’t present him as an “expert,” merely as a self-proclaimed skeptic who has strong, even shocking, opinions on these issues. You can see his interview HERE.

This is what he wrote to us:

The video is lousy, but, anyway, if I recall the Bikini A-bomb was at 30 meters of depth when ignited. If so, then all the water in the atoll should be lit up, but it is not. Three seconds later we see a trunk of water rising but the atoll is still full of water with the ships floating on top. I would have expected all water/ships to be ejected outwards by the bomb shock wave. Not seen. And all the ships are floating.

We believe this is a credible reaction. The water in the atoll is not roiled. The ships don’t seem to move, or not much. The water around the blast is not illuminated by the explosion.

The camera and the plane seem rather close for an explosion of the magnitude of Baker. In fact, this Baker test is in line with other films we have seen documenting the early successes of the US nuclear program.

Perhaps it is just what it purports to be, but we have difficulty accepting that it has not been tampered with, especially given other films that seem to raise similar question.

HERE’s another video of a nuclear explosion that raises questions about how it was filmed. And then there is this HERE:

We recently reported on nuclear rocket conversions in Vietnam, HERE. In fact, the nuclear rocket program of that time was extremely controversial. In the 1950s, the Pentagon bowed to public pressure and a single special test was held to reassure people about the program and the “Genie” rockets named after a Walt Disney film, HERE:

We wrote:

It is surprising that this sort of testing was accepted as legitimate, given the absence of the general public. Handpicked witnesses. a single army narrator and a special camera-man from “Lookout Mountain” comprise the “witnesses … The photo provided doesn’t look especially convincing, either.

In fact, ludicrously, the film cuts away from the explosion just before it is triggered. Finally, comes the explosion, all alone on the screen, devoid of markers that ensure its legitimacy.

Conclusion: Over and over, the Pentagon offers up video evidence regarding nukes that seen with today’s eyes can be considered  either flawed or questionable. The new Bikini Atoll footage does not in our view advance the credibility of the Pentagon nor the documentation of its weapons programs.

Tagged with:
  • Mexicano

    Keep up the good work. I can´t help but think you are onto something

    • alohajim

      Agreed Mexicano. DB is the only source asking these questions that I can see. It’s DB’s credibility that makes it such a shocker – these guys are not internet whack jobs and that is what is causing the ruckus. It’s great to see Zero Hedge run at least two of these DB pieces about the nuclear hoax but very sad to see the vehement response of maybe 80% + of the commentators who fall over themselves defending what they saw on TV and were taught in school. They mistakenly bemoan DB’s loss of credibility while refusing to acknowledge the possibility DB is actually dropping nuclear ‘truth bombs’.

      Request that DB continue probing both this issue and the moon landings. Both issues are shaking things up a bit in conspiracy theorist land. Many thanks!

      • Hey, thanks, we didn’t know about the second pickup. Actually that pickup got a lot of positive – or at least non-negative – comments. It was the first one that got an almost hysterically negative reception – on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Which was strange because everything we pointed out was accurate. And we did NOT write that the bombing didn’t occur, only that there were many, many questions about the entire narrative. And those questions persist.

      • Sam Fox

        alohajim, DB is for sure a top rate site.
        Other sites to include are the Arizona Freedom Alliance, DC Clothesline, Liberty Writers News, Freedom’s Phoenix, Dennis Michael Lynch & more.

  • David DeClue

    My dad was there, assigned to the USS Ralph Talbot, which was sunk. He was an EE from MIT, held patents in mirco electronics. He never ever expressed any doubt that what he saw were atomic detonations.

    • It’s certainly possible he saw a nuclear detonation. But we’re following up on some interesting experiments that the Pentagon was doing at the time with massive amounts of dynamite. Some of the test explosions took place apparently where they were testing nuclear weapons. And some of the footage may have been intermingled. Dynamite, when exploded on a massive scale produces a “mushroom cloud” type detonation.

      • David DeClue

        Let me follow up on that, my dad was electronics mate, assigned to the CIC. The ships were all instrumented, and following the Able test he returned to the ship to collect data, including radiation detection instruments. Of course this is hearsay coming from me, but he told us that the radiation was much higher than expected and they had to withdraw for a few days while water was sprayed on the target ships to decontaminate them .

        I gave a speech in high school using his recollections and the official Operation Crossroads book published by the Navy and distributed to the participants, which is why my recollection is fairly clear. I’m sure he described the feeling the flash on his back, lowly techs did not get filtered glasses, but turned their backs to the blast, and then heard the report seconds later. They were anchored approximately 15 miles from Bikini for the first test.

        As for the Baker test, one can clearly see the propagation of the shock wave instantaneously though the water, which is much denser than air, as well as that dark spot in the water column, which is the battleship Nevada being stood up on its end, so don’t tell me none of the target ships moved!!

        I think you are damaging your credibility pushing this story and that is the real shame

        • We’ve never claimed that nuclear weapons don’t exist. But why does asking questions undermine our credibility? We’ve provided plenty of links and produced plenty of articles built around these questions. The Pentagon is incapable of exaggerating or making stuff up? You accept the Genie test at face value? Take a look at it (link above).

        • chris

          Why does it damage somebody’s credibility to point out things they find inconsistent? Isn’t that what debate is about? I say, shame on you for threatening DB with loss of admiration to foster your ideas.

          Nukes not being what they claim is an intriguing possibility to consider, and one very few have given any thought to. In hindsight, it seems quite ridiculous to have overlooked this idea-especially when you consider what it has cost the world.

  • Casper

    I think there is some basic misunderstanding of physics and scale here. The Baker bomb was a small bomb, only 23 kilotons, and I don’t see anything suspicious based on that in the video.

    The shock wave is just a blast of air, and can be seen very clearly traveling quickly over the water and through the atmosphere. It does not have the force to rock the ships from such a small yielding explosion.

    The rest of the video shows the enormous water wave that develops. You have to appreciate the scale of the video. Look at the size of the ships compared to the size of the wave. The wave is big, about as high as a ship turned on its head.

    At these scales things don’t happen instantaneously as is expected here by the writer. It takes time for the water wave to propagate. You have to understand the size and the amount of water being displaced here, and the time it takes for waves in water to propagate.

    With bombs things are only instantaneous at short distances. When you start talking about distances of more than several hundred meters things just don’t happen in the blink of an eye, even with atomic bombs, but especially with one as small as only 23 kilotons.

    The propaganda of atomic bombs may very well be exaggerated. Why would you not exaggerate to put more fear in everyone, but the arguments put forth here about the Baker Bomb footage do not stand up to scrutiny in my opinion. There seems to be some basic misunderstanding about how physics and matter behave at very large scales and distances.

    • Thanks for the insights. From what we can tell, the Pentagon and Navy claimed Baker had considerably more destructive capacity than expected. So it may have been small, but “small and deadly” might be a better description.

      • Casper

        Yes…here is a nice example of a “live” shockwave actually filmed on the ground from a volcanic eruption, and both felt and seen by the person holding the camera. Of course this is no nuclear explosion, but still quite impressive.

        You can see a similar shockwave propagate, and see and hear the delay of the incoming force. It’s a big bang, but nothing that really moves “stuff” like people or ships. I think we need to be in the megaton range before the shockwave starts directly destroying things that are far away. Of course I’m guessing a little bit here, but that’s what it seems like.

      • Will Kit

        DB If so much water was displaced, much as happens with an earthquake and the sea floor giving way and rushing in, surely the footage would have continued with water passing through itself and then a further tidal wave

        • We’re not sure what to think about Baker, but it looks a bit “weird.”