User talk:Lew Sheen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Lew Sheen, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page K2, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! SMS Talk 12:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Enewetak atoll[edit]

Hey, I reverted your edit to the above article. If you provide some cited evidence that the following test shot video is Castle Bravo as you claim, we can discuss it's identity on the talk page of the article here ->Talk:Enewetak_Atoll. You can't just delete article content without providing a good reason for it, that usually includes having some evidence to back up your claim. So make your case for it being Castle Bravo(as you claim) on the talk page of that article. Thanks!

Test shot Nectar of Operation Castle produced a yield of 1.69 megatons and was detonated just east of Ivy Mike's Elugelab crater. Note the distinctive near instantaneous double flash, with the second appearing brighter than the sun, and the blast wave slowly, by comparison, spreading out turning the calm ocean water a distinctive frothy white as it arrives. The Island of Bogon is the spearhead shaped object at the bottom right of the screen, as it was before the Redwing Seminole test was conducted on that island.


See the reply I've made on the talk page, Talk:Enewetak_Atoll good to work with you man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Another reply[edit]

See the same talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What proof?[edit]

What proof did you get ahold of man? The brightness curve of the detonation is an indicator of it's yield, but we can't use that as a reference as it's original research on our parts - WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Proof was that I emailed someone involved in one of the documentaries asking them about the footage, and they actually replied to me within 20 minutes - confirming that the footage in question is indeed Castle Nectar!
Good enough for me!
As far as using the light curve to determine yield, my two problems with that are: 1) No way to know the video's playback speed - it looks like it's real time, the condensation cloud formation looks right, but I wouldn't trust that to be definitive; and 2) There's also no way to tell if the brightness of the playback was artificially altered, either.
Not sure it'd be OR either, I seem to remember seeing a graph somewhere on the internet relating the timing of the double-flash to the yield of a shot. Couldn't tell you where or when I found it, tho.
I'm just happy that the issue is satisfactorily resolved - that was always my goal. And I don't mind admitting I was wrong. I'm not on here to show how smart I am (obviously not! =;^) - again I sincerely care that Wikipedia is factual.
Nice working with you too, my friend! Lew Sheen (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Just found this on the web: <r></r> - A scientific treatise explaining the physical mechanism which produces the double flash, and which also includes a graph of yield-to-light-curve. Lew Sheen (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Good find Lew, I originally learned of the yield-to-light-curve from "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" an ebook version of which is free on fourmilab, but your link is more detailed and I will enjoy reading it. I think I comprehend your desire for keeping your email source private but we're really in a hairy position here, as no doubt, this issue will crop up again when someone else sees trinity and beyond, so without a reliable reference to settle the issue- is it Nectar, Bravo or some other test shot, this confusion will continue into future generations. (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I hear ya about the ongoing confusion, I don't like it either. But I have 2 responses: 1) I sent someone a personal email asking about this issue, and I don't think that person expected me to make their reply to a personal email public and to then publicly share their name. Each of the 3 documentaries I've mentioned implies that the shot footage is Bravo, so some people could assume that the videos are deliberately misleading - not a welcome characterization for a documentarian! 2) It's plain to me that the lack of publicly available ID of the shot is deliberate. I'm not sure who's hiding what or why they're doing so... But - given the possible gravity of the subject under discussion - at some point it may be wise to let well enough alone.
Personally, it's not a big deal to me that the footage is Nectar and not Bravo. Each of the 3 documentaries is richer - more enjoyable and compelling for the inclusion of the footage, so I personally support the use of the footage as has been done.
I think it's extremely likely that concrete proof is just plain not available to the public at this time - so be it.
Lew Sheen (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries friend, but did your email source give you any info on who filmed the detonation, or what plane was used? Anything at all would be helpful for future historians. (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The only reference my source gave was 'Castle Military Effects'. No more-in-depth references were cited. Also, my contact has as yet not responded to my question as to whether I could ID and cite them as a source of the shot footage in question, leading me to believe that I cannot (ethically) reveal my source.
Sigh... The confusion continues...

"Proof was that I emailed <one of the producers> asking them about the footage, and I was astonished when they replied to me within 20 minutes confirming that the footage in question is indeed Castle Nectar!"

^You wrote the above and then removed it, I read it before the removal, so you already did ID him? I respect his, and your wishes, to not reference him, I'm just at an odds to understand who you're pretending you never IDed him as your source.

Anyways, I wish you well friend, thanks for the debate, so long. Live long and prosper. (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

In my excitement, I did post the above - which I regret doing. Upon further thought, I quickly decided that I had made a mistake in doing so - so I retracted my ID as best I could. As I said, I don't think this person expected to be 'outed' as a result of replying to a personal email. I then promptly sent them another email asking if it was OK to ID them, and I have yet to hear a response to my question back from them. In my mind, this confirms their desire to NOT be specifically identified as the source of the info. I ask that you respect my stated (and this person's implied) wishes in this matter, Thanks.
Another thing I considered: As I understand them, this person's say-so does not meet the requirements for valid citation on Wikipedia, so ID'ing them does not accomplish the goal - which is to provide positive ID of the shot footage in question from a clear-cut source.
Also, in my original email I did specifically ask this person about their source, and all they said was that it was "Operation Castle Military Effects". I have viewed at least a half-dozen copies of this film online, and each has been identically 'sanitized' via muting of the voice-over in many places - presumably including when the shot being shown at the time is named. So either this person also viewed sanitized versions and researched it themselves (implying that any one of us could do the same), or they were allowed to view an un-sanitized version. If the latter case is true, then it seems likely to me that there was some kind of formal agreement between the documentarian and the body controlling access to the un-sanitized film (presumably the US DOE), and it's conceivable that agreement disallowed revealing certain information.
Finally: The film's sanitation implies that the controlling body, for whatever reason, does not want this info made public. I admit that this is an assumption on my part, but I have decided to honor it anyway - as far as I can.
I probably can't put the mushroom cloud back into the metal housing, but I feel I have to try!
I wish you the best also, my friend. I enjoyed our debate, and I am glad that Wikipedia was correct (and I was wrong).
Big Lew 14:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Third World War: The Untold Story may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • to suggest that it could be plausible that the use of [[nuclear weapons]] might not result in a [[nuclear warfare|full-scale exchange of nuslear weapons betweeen the USSR and the west. Indeed, the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)