THE LATEST UPDATE ON THE NAZI BELL
Ms. D.L. spotted the following video on YouTube, and shared it, and given that the topic is the Nazi Bell, you know I just have to blog about it.The video purports to show allegedly real wartime film footage of the Nazi Bell, plus footage of other Nazi flying saucers. We'll get back to all this.
Here's the short video:
As one might imagine, there are several things in these alleged film clips that give me pause, and make me question the authenticity of some, if not all, of the footage. First, as the author of the video himself comments, he has spliced together two different films. Thus, we see a video which - to my eye - consists of films of three things: (1) the first black and white film footage of the Bell, chained to the so-called Henge structure, and levitating somewhat "jerkily" and giving off apparently strange glows; (2) a second film of "Nazi flying saucers", one of which is quite large, with ground personnel moving around them; and (3) more footage of the Bell, this time levitating quite smoothly without the jerking motion seen in the first part. Notably, in this third part, we do not see anything tethering the Bell at all, though given the brightness of the exposure to the film, this may be an effect of possible bleaching obscuring any tethering that may have been there.
Now the possibilities confronting us are these:
(1) that all three portions of the film are fake;
(2) that the first part is fake, and the middle and last parts genuine;
(3) that the first and middle parts are fake, and the last part genuine;
(4) that the first part and last parts are genuine and the middle fake;
(5) that all three portions are genuine.
In my opinion, we can rule out the first part - the one showing the Bell tethered by chains to the Henge and levitating jerkily - as being genuine for two fundamental reasons. Firstly, as Witkowski notes in The Truth About the Wunderwaffe, the Nazis had built an entire powerplant near the test site. He also records that the device was nicknamed by the Germans "the Beehive" because of the loud buzzing sound it made. In Secrets of the Unified Field I speculated that these two things are a signal clue that the Bell required massive amounts of direct current pulsed electricity: hence the power plant, and the buzzing sound of an electrical gate being opened and closed rapidly, producing the sound. In effect, this would have required the Bell to have been tethered to electrical cabling when in operation. We may rule out the first footage as genuine for a third possible reason, in that the device shows a swastika clearly emblazoned, and presumably painted, on it. In Both Witkowski's, Cook's and my own speculative attempt to "reverse engineer" the physics and technologies in the device, we all agreed, based on Witkowski's original research, that the device gave off strong radiation - possibly even in the form of gamma and x-rays - during operation. This would have toasted any painted-on symbol, and the swastika simply would not have been visible at all. The only way to make such a symbol visible would be if it were actually a part of the structure we see. It's possible, but quite frankly, that's not what my eyes see. The final problem with this footage is to my mind an equally serious problem as the first two: no one knows what the Bell actually looked like. It is thus curious that after various artists renditions of the Bell, which the video's author himself uses during his introduction to the film clips, and which renditions appeared in some cases many years before this film, that the device pictured in the film resembles the artists' renditions so closely. In short: I'm calling part one "fake."
The second part of the film clip appears to me to be fake, simply for the reason that if the Bell, as speculated by Witkowski, Cook, and me, was the Nazi antigravity technology, then it would require a leap forward in technology to use it as the drive for any "saucers" that we simply do not see. This is an important point, because as my attempts to reconstruct or "reverse engineer" a possible physics and reasoning process for the Bell from the details provided in Witkowski's book demonstrate, the device was not capable of maneuver, and one would have to solve the radiation problem in order to make it safe to use. The other problem, of course, is that if one is building entire powerplants to service the device, then using it in the saucers would have required a massive leap forward in battery/capacitor technology to be usable in flying craft. I just do not think this is possible. which leaves another operative principle for the saucers. Unfortunately, as I've also pointed out, when one looks for details about the physics and thinking behind such saucers, one finds very few details. In other words, one does not have the details about them that one has about the Bell to reconstruct or reverse engineer a speculative physics behind them. There are, of course, the allegations of Nazi saucers using vectored jet turbine exhaust, but these do not look to be anything close to what such craft might look like. We see no intake on the large saucer, and but the faintest of indications of a turbine in the second, smaller one. There is the possibility of microporous material, but there is no way to check any of it. So I am strongly inclined to view the second part of the film as fake as well. Indeed, the problems with the first two parts of this film suggest the possibility to my mind that they may be an attempt to obfuscate the Bell story - and hence any speculations about it such as Cook's or my own - by entangling it with dubious footage.
To my mind, the most interesting footage is actually the third part, and if any footage might have some claim to authenticity, it's this component. But here again, the problem of the device's resemblance to artistic renditions done years before the film's discovery cast a huge cloud of doubt on the whole thing, plus - again - the fact that no tethering is visible. The only thing saving the tethering issue here is the (to my mind) remote possibility that the over-exposure of the film might be obscuring it, and that the over-exposure might be due to the radiation effects given off by the device. But that, of course, does not resolve issue of the fact that the artistic renditions which - again - appeared many years before the film, when nothing really was known about the exact shape of the device, resemble the device seen in the films so closely.
So, for the moment, and for the above stated reasons, I'm calling "fake" on all three components, until we know more about the provenance of these films.
But there emergence does raise an interesting question. Surely, at some point, with a technology so in advance of anything in the day, the Nazis would have taken pictures, and probably films, of it. So where did they go? Or did they, like the device itself, disappear into the post-war black projects world of the USA, or of the Nazi International?
One final point: I am, as far as I know, the first one to point out the similarities between the Bell and the Kecksburg Acorn, but, unlike the author of the film. I did so on the basis of a number of datapoints connecting the two objects. I did not however, draw the conclusion that it was an American test gone wrong.
So back to the main story: bottom line as of this writing, until we know more (much more) about these films, I'm calling "fake" for all three, and hold open a slight possibility that only the third part might be genuine.
See you on the flip side.
30 Comments
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
I remember one time, that while reading one of of our friend Anakephalaiosis’ offerings, I had the faintest candle flame-like sputter of recognition as to a possible understanding of the content.
hear! hear! I concur with JPF, excellent assessment. In fairness, the video channel didn’t claim it was genuine, but presented it like, here, this is interesting, decide for yourselves. But for all we know, they could have planted the story themselves on FB and made it look like they picked it up from a closed FB account (now that’s high octane speculation lol)
Yes, nr 1 is how I would film such a test if Leni was not around, teasing Heinrich.
seems consensus here is – fake.
seems whenever our media runs thick with such stunted hangouts (as opposed to limited hangouts) we’re about to get hit with some disclosure of some wowza kinda stuff that makes everyone believe in the wrongest direction. how’s that for precise limguistics?
examples? networks pretend to be all anti-establishment corporate watchdogs while almost headlining monstersanto getting ruled $289M against on glyphosate. like they were pulling for the honest plaintiff all along and reserving their judgement. and then every step down the slippery slope into admission of crimes, they highlight any doubts they can throw up. i remember it with bhopal. deepwater horizon too. sure they’ll throw out a couple horrifically bad sounding scenarios that scare bejeezus out of us common folk. they never come near splaining that it’s all way worse than they’re letting on, that it’s all way more intentional than it looks and besides all that, our friendly govt regulators just classified everything so we’re not allowed to fly over the scene and show you pictures. oh and that school shooting? yeh. that schools been torn down. and the molten steel from that collapsed skyscraper? yeh, what was left of it that wasn’t pulverized instantly into dust was shipped to china within hours.
In my opinion he first one is fake, ive seen an exact color version before, and it’s clear someone added a black and white filter and a cinematic filter to age the footage. And the footage was created in a 3D program of a second rate nature.
The second and third are interesting but I suspect it’s all fake too.
I don’t think the Nazis would let any recording of this device in operation be lost or leak it themselves. Plus at the time who knows if the effects of the bell would destroy any film in a camera, etc
I recognized the first bell animation from something I saw a long time ago on the History Channel. The History Channel web page still has a short clip from that episode:
https://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens/videos/the-nazi-bell
I couldn’t view the clip in Chrome, but it worked Edge.
I’ll save a lengthy response. These look as authentic as the Billy Meier photographs–no more and no less. If one can accept the Billy Meier photographs as the genuine article, they will accept these quite handily. For the record, I do accept the Billy Meier photos as genuine. That is, genuine fakes.
Compared to the elegant modern digital restoration used in the recent “They shall not grow old” film, these clips are lame. Been watching Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl’s work. This footage is not consistent with contemporary Nazi quality. Hitler would assigned his best to the recording of this for posterity and propaganda. Also, the chain tethers don’t move correctly. Can’t verbalize it but the chain links don’t move as tho tension is applied and released. I vote FAKE on all of it.
Jon is spot on about the shaky cam although Leni did a aerial tracking shot for Triumph of the Will. It was clean and smooth. I saw her interviewed (later in her life in a doc film) where she describes how innovative this was. And how every camerman used the fixed frame. Think German precision.
My unasked for opinion is all three are fake BUT the segment of a bell shaped object hovering may be real. It was then inserted or camouflaged with the other obviously fake stuff to discredit it.
Two other tidbits.
His German pronunciation is worse than my Engrish 😉
He was able to find photos of Mr. Witkowski and Mr. Cook but not of Dr Farrell. Why? Is Dr. Farrell so obscure? Or an excellent source of discerning research?
Robert
I am just hanging out for Iron Sky 2 movie to see what is really going on, Hollywood wise (weise).
are you hinting this is a ridiculously limited hangout of wizard stick proportion?
Yes I’ll go with all 3 are fake. having dabbled for 2 decades with CGI I’ll toss some experience into the argument.
Firstly – the lighting, some of it is way too perfect – the beams of light coming out of the Bell, these are clearly “Volumetric Lighting” effects. This is the GGI equivalent sunbeams through clouds, spotlight beams etc. They tend to be quite realistic, but also to the point of perfection.
Secondly – The motion of the Bell, the physics of the motion. To me – poorly executed repetitive routines calculated by the “Bullet Dynamics” plug-in. This plug-in is available for several high-end CGI software packages. it can do some amazing stuff but in the end it too looks unrealistic.
Thirdly – the composite shot of the “Hanabu” gives away the biggest problem of creating a composite shot, and that’s making sure none of the people walking around the scene move any where near or into the area of the shot that will contain the post production inserts, namely the Flying Discs! They are all so carefully placed in the shot!
Fourth – the flim scratches and dirt appear to be run of the mill video software effects, repetitive and dust of similar shapes appearing at random across the scene.
Additionally, the contrast has been flattened and multiple video compression applications run to hide all the critical CGI elements as best they can. The fact the Bell appears behind one of the Henge pillars is a classic video compression artifact.
I would say a team inside the Black Projects has been assigned to produce this, put it out, then delete it after reaching a target of “views”. It also appears to have been deliberately put together to match what has been written about the Bell, which in itself is based on very limited source material.
Good explanation, Unclejed. Thank you.
I wish people wouldn’t put out fake stuff. They need to get out of their room more. It’s not nice to fool old people like me who can just barely operate their computers.
Joseph’s five possibilities reminded me of my logic class.
Does the Alien Autopsy Video ring a bell. The real problem is what would a genuine video of the Glock look like if such evidence exists?
I say fake. The film quality is just too poor, also the CGI of the first clip is awkwardly clumsy. Nazis could have produce a much more better film than this. The last clip looked good thought, but if it’s real… why the film quality is so bad?
They used fighter plane gun camera to shoot these films lol? I mean the quality looks similar as in those WW2 fighter gun camera videos on Youtube.
I tend to view the “so-called Henge structure” as the concrete base of a watertower. Other very similar examples have been found elsewhere. In that context, I view any ‘flights’ of objects around that structure as deliberate disinformation…
My boiled-down view of available info would put any testing deep underground, not on the surface. I suspect any artifactual evidence would be found within the dynamited tunnels. In fact, one of the strongest ‘evidences’ of post-war Nazi influences is that no one has been able to get permission to do an archeological dig into those tunnels. They moved or destroyed the paperwork. They shot the project scientists. But, the ‘good stuff’ would have been components too big or too heavy to move. Hence, the dynamiting. They are probably still there, awaiting a permissive environment…
I’m familiar with the water tower argument. Unfortunately, I don’t think it holds water (pardon the pun) in this case, as Witkowski, as I recall, produces an Allied aerieal recon photo of Ludiswigsdorff, and the Henge appears without a water tower.
Yes he does and the photo is from 1943.
Jim Marrs, The Rise of the Fourth Reich (2008)
p.78 :
“Initially, Witkowski thought this might be the remains of a cooling tower. He abandoned this idea once he saw cooling towers at a different location on photographs of the area, taken in 1934.”
p.77 :
“In 1931, the Wenzeslaus Mine suffered an accident that caused bankruptcy and a takeover by the Polish government. With the occupation of Poland, the mine was reconditioned by the Nazis as a gigantic science center.”
As the invasion of Poland did not take place until Fall 1939, it is likely that the reconditioning by the Nazis did not occur until at least 1941 – probably later, with the invasion of France, Battle of Britain, invasion of USSR, etc. If the mention in Marrs book is the “aerial recon photo” cited, that is early enough for the “so-called Henge structure” to be the concrete base of a future watertower – being built specifically for the new “gigantic science center.”
(If the “aerial recon photo” cited by TheThinker101 is indeed from 1943, that leaves a much narrower window for the water-tank part of the watertower to be almost installed…)
I watched the video. I believe i have observed the actual clips of the “Bell” on a segment of UFOTV some year of so ago. UFOTV has used Dr. Farrells work in the past and just recently has used citations of his work and given credit to Dr. Farrell.
I believe that the “clips” have been degraded on purpose to give it the feel it is old.
They are CGI as far as I am able to tell. Film clips even degraded film clips are much more realistic than these clips. To reiterate I saw them on UFOTV a year or two ago.
Enjoy.
I’m saying fake on all three. Especially the first one. It looks like a black and white version of the various dramatizations that are shown on the history, discovery channels.
The first one is definitely computer generated – the movements are not just jerky, they exhibit a quality seen in poor animations not using physics properties properly. Just check out some other amateur animations on YouTube and you will see what I mean.
The second reason I call fake on it is that near the very beginning, one of the struts of the henge goes transparent and you can see the “bell” behind it for a brief bit, a common problem in computer 3D animation.
Part one is definitely fake.
The second part looks like footage I have seen before, and while it could be real, I tend to doubt it. Looks like green screen or forced perspective (using painted glass or props at different distance in the scene mixed with people, which uses special lenses focusing at radically different distances at the same time) to me.
Again, CGI (computer generated imagery) is so good today, almost anyone can create photorealistic images and video with a good computer and free software (Blender). If you don’t believe me, check out some of the demos for Blender 2.8, like the lizard demo.
Also, intelligence agencies and other large, well funded groups have been able to create much better fakes for nearly 4 decades. I read an article in the early 80s in Whole Earth Review discussing computer generated photos of the day which used the line “the end of pictures as evidence of anything.” That was back when companies like Scitex and Chromacon were “editing” photos for magazine covers and such. And that was just their declassified work 40 years ago.
I also think the third one was fake as well. It moved “too” smoothly, not exhibiting the normal random small motions of any machine or device pulsing with that much power.
Also, the camera work is something one would not see in those days. Camera men back then were VERY careful about movement, and any photographic documentation that professional German cameramen would do would not be so jerky. That jerky, manic kind of camera use is a product of the 1990s and MTV, which pretty much caused almost all video production to throw good camera practices out the window. All that “shakey camera technique” is not some sort of new style, it is just lazy and incompetent camera work from poorly trained, would-be videographers. Younger people trying to fake video would not know this, because they have no knowledge of history, even in their own arts.
My money is on all of them being fake.
It is almost impossible to trust any video or pictures today. The faking capability is just too good.
I rejected Billy Meier’s “films” for similar reasons – he shot with film cameras which move the film by the gate and shutter at a certain rate (in regular cinema of the time, 24 frames per second).
The fact that his “flying saucers” disappeared from one frame to the next was touted as proof of how “advanced and fast” the saucers were. Well, if one was ignorant of film technique, one might buy that.
However, if one was doing stop frame filming of models, that is exactly what one would expect – one frame it is there, the next it is gone (because one moved it out of frame). If it was truly faster than the frame rate, one would get faded images on at least one frame, and that never happened in any of the footage I saw.
The other glaring errors I caught in his footage made it obvious that the “saucers” were models tethered close to the camera. In one case, the saucer was seen to “circle” around a house – but the manner in which it moved indicated it was tethered from above and was rotating line a tether ball on a pole around a fixed point above (like Townsend Brown’s real experimental models).
In another bit of footage, the “saucer,” which was supposedly out over a valley some distance away, moved up and down, exactly matching the movements of a branch in the foreground, indicating it was a model tethered to another branch in the same tree, reacting to the breeze in the same manner. Way, way obvious to any objective observer.
There are a lot of people faking stuff on YouTube and other places. Some are just pranksters trying to put one over on gullible people, but others are paid disinformation types, determined to muddy the waters. Given how easily information can spread in the modern world, filling the “airwaves” with a lot of deliberately stupid noise is the primary way to bury any real info. One can’t stamp it all out, so one obscures it in a pile of manure.
a bunch of would be kubricks trying to get their dr strangelove start eh?
The question is why “they” are releasing this now.
It’s a given they’re not going to give us the real McCoy.
But misdirection, misinformation? In spades!
SQUARE POINT THEATER 18
By cyclotron,
in Stargate Pi Trilithon,
whirligig is risen.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/ziyl4wpil83i64t/sherlock04.jpg
Is that supposed to mean something?
I would like your comment if that was possible, SchwartzenStein!