>>107080235
>obviously false
>doesn't tell us why.
I see in that video that the "bottom" of all these "events" are taking place near or at the visual horizon line.
That horizontal black line you see.
The military observers (ukranian?) have redundant cameras, and are taking the video from an evevated position on a hill overlooking everything.
That horizon is 12 miles away from that elevation, about.
>>107080270
>no radiation picked up.
Norway immediately issued an alert for cesium 137 that day. I remeber the report.
>camera would have picked it up.
It's not a photo you are looking at: you are looking at a video, compressed. Not the CMOS sensor readings.
And the EMSweep you are talking about takes place at initiation: which is cut from this video.
Might have happened underground: which would remove direct line of sight from the initiation. You are pretending this is an air burst and that laydown or underground detonations are impossible. When the US has worked on penetrators that protect the physics package like an egg.
> older cameras that filmed nuclear blasts were in bunkers and had mirrors to outside
>also no radiation spike on any meter, nobody registered it. no shred of evidence supporting your claim other than "but it looks like a nuke to me" which is irrelevant
Yes they did Norway reported it immediatly, then changed their story when asked.
Also you're ignoring Ripple-II derived "tritium-only" devices.
Where the plutonium 3mm sphere has less contribution to the blast than traditional devices.
>>107080300
Do you want me to kill you?
Keep calling me a schizo.
