Talk:Enewetak Atoll

Climate change and effects on the atoll
I'm quite astonished at the amount of impressive technical expertise that has been rendered in the article directly solely to examination of the minutiae of nuclear blasts, and secondarily, the recapitulation of historical data of WWII and the testing era. However, both in the article and in TALK, the issue of climate change and rising seas has been totally ignored to date. Effects of global warming on oceans. Isn't it about time that the science turns its attention to the what the annual .3 mm/yr annual rise in sea levels might predict for the future of Enewetak? Will the billions spent on restoration of the islands' environment so that parts might become somewhat habitable, sink slowly beneath the waves? Activist (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Gallery image identification
After further research, I am now 100% satisfied that I have been wrong all along: I can now confidently state that the video footage in question is indeed the Castle Nectar shot - NOT Castle Bravo - as I had incorrectly believed.

I appreciate the anonymous reversion of my deletion, and I and apologize for the less-than-comprehensive research that led me to make my erroneous deletion of the correctly identified video footage in the first place. I am gratified (and humbled) to acknowledge that Wikipedia - in this instance - was a source of true knowledge in an area in which I consider myself a very-well-educated (yet apparently not-so-well-educated) layman, and taught me something important that I didn't know previously.

I am happy (and chagrined) to withdraw my challenge of the identification of the Castle Nectar video footage I've been questioning recently.

Mission accomplished - Wikipedia was and is still correct!

Sharing knowledge via open discussion and challenging easy assumptions are the pillars on which modern science and progress are founded.

Thanks, all! Lew Sheen (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a work in progress. We are always looking to try to improve it. Challenging with a bold edit is as valuable a step at improvement as most any other.


 * As to the question at hand, I have been looking at it. The videos you point to and some others use the footage in question in a discussion of the Castle Bravo detonation, but as I look at the size it does not appear that that could be right, plus there is the image of the causeway. I agree with IP 86.41.239.213 that Nectar is most likely correct, and so the various videos using this footage to discuss the Castle Bravo detonation are in error.


 * As to the 'Secksma Sheen', yes, I saw that and answered back on my talk page. Very cool.
 * Thanks much. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Lew Sheen (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Continuing my research into identifying the Castle Bravo/Nectar video in question, I've found more information. Please go here: http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2011/05/declassified-data-on-structures-exposed.html

Near the top of the glasstone page, there is a map of Bikini which shows Namu (Charlie) Island as having a distinct arrow-head shape prior to the Castle Bravo shot. There is no source listed for the map, so I will continue to research this. No doubt Namu's western shoreline was altered significantly by the Bravo shot, which would explain why it looks different in post-Bravo images.

Additional relevant web pages:

http_www-dot-mappery-dotcom/map-of/Bikini-atoll-Map https://www.bikiniatoll.com/facts.html http://www.flickr.com/photos/losalamosnatlab/7597425886/ http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=bd4c7781b3cf49e89d1225be9c465173 Zoom in to see the triangular shape of Namu Island http://www.springerimages.com/Images/Geosciences/1-10.1007_978-90-481-2639-2_47-21

At any rate, it certainly demonstrates that - based on the shape the island in the footage - it could could easily be Namu.

Peace.


 * Yes it could. So do you think we should try to identify the image based on the appearance of the islands (which can change pre- and post-blast and which can appear different from different perspectives) or should we try to find the original footage in an archive and take the identification that they use there, if they do in fact identify the footage with each test done. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Clearly positive identification from a respected source is the desirable choice. I'd LOVE to see that, even if I was thereby proven wrong.


 * The problem is that over many hours of internet research I have not been able to find such. Every example of official DOE footage that I've been able to track down which show this particular shot have been 'sanitized' with large portions of their accompanying audio removed - including, no doubt, the portion of the voice-over that IDs the various shots. Lew Sheen (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's brilliant. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Therefore, and in the absence of irrefutable proof, I have relied on established documentaries (listed below), and indirect evidence (the shape of the visible landforms, characteristics of the fireball, etc.) in making my claim.


 * Frankly, I strongly doubt that real identification is available to the public at this time. In that case, whoever IDed the shot as Castle Nectar is guessing, as am I. I believe I have produced a stronger case for my guess. If the other author would provide something more concrete than they have, I would acquiesce - but they haven't. The only source they've provided says the shot footage is from Trinity and Beyond, which IDs it as Castle Bravo (See immediately below).


 * Also - as I stated earlier, it's really not that big a deal to me. I believe at this point that proper identification is impossible, and I acknowledge the possibility that the video in question shows Castle Nectar. Lew Sheen (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is going to be a lot harder than I thought. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I get that sense also, GBD. Like I said, I think it's very likely that a reliable and clear source is not available to the public. Bearing that likelihood in mind, I'm OK with either of three options: 1) Leave things as they are (ID the footage as Nectar, possible but not likely IMHO); 2) Change the ID of the footage to Castle Bravo - see Peter Kurlan's documentary "Trinity and Beyond - the Atomic Bomb Movie" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge865CR9pN8; NPR's "The American Experience: Race for the Superbomb" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0272267/; and also from NPR's "Secrets of the Dead: The World's Biggest Bomb" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1923839/ - all three of which strongly imply that the footage is Castle Bravo; or 3) Re-caption the video to reflect the ambiguity.


 * Furthermore, while certainly not incontrovertible proof that it's Bravo, and despite the muted voice-over, the Operation Bravo Commander's Report https://archive.org/details/CastleCommandersReport1954 strongly implies that the shot is Bravo. I say this because the narration mentions the 3/1/54 date very early on, and shortly after that (but after the mute) the footage in question is shown - it's chronologically the first shot footage shown in the report. To me, this strongly implies that the footage in question is CB, but that's not positive ID.


 * Could the visuals in the Commander's Report have been rearranged to deliberately confuse things?


 * Sure!


 * This is why careful sleuth work is in order, and maybe a willingness to accept some ambiguity and make our best guess despite it. Certainly in articles on ancient historical figures there is little factual data available - so there IS a precedent for this type of thing both here on Wikipedia and in academia in general.


 * To this end, I just sent a message about this via the "Contact Peter Kurlan" on the VCE (Visual Concepts Entertainment) website which implies that Peter Kurlan himself will at least see my message. I'm curious as to whether and how he might respond. We'll see... Rest assured that if I can, I'll share his response here.


 * I have to admit, the more I think about your point about the peril an aircraft would be in to capture the footage of a 15MT detonation, the more I wonder if it's really CB. From what I've read, the CB fireball was 4-1/2 miles in diameter. That's 23,500' (angels 23 plus 5)! Given that the shot was essentially at sea level, that means the fireball was at LEAST 11,750' high - angels 11 plus 75. Viewing the footage, if it is Castle Bravo, then I estimate that the aircraft that took the shot had to be at least at angels 50 - not impossible, but quite high for military aircraft of that day. That was before the B-52 (1st flight in '55 - the year I was born). Service ceiling of the B-47 is listed as angels 45. Service ceiling of the B-29 (first American bomber with a pressurized crew compartment) is ~ angels 32. Not sure what else we might have had flying at that time - maybe the B-57 Martin Canberra, widely used as a reconnaissance aircraft at that time - listed service ceiling angels 40.


 * Just to cloud the issue further, just stumbled across a message posted to youtube about this footage claiming it's Redwing Tewa!


 * Sigh... Lew Sheen (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Lew Sheen (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Strange - The Wikipedia copy of the video (which I still believe is misidentified here) is credited to 'SonicBomb.com'. Checking the Sonic Bomb page, one finds that SonicBomb credits THEIR video source as 'Trinity and Beyond' - which clearly identifies the shot as Castle Bravo!

The pointy island is Namu in Bikini, NOT Bogon in Enewetak.

I also just viewed 'Race for the Super Bomb' - a PBS documentary from 1999 which also identifies the footage as Castle Bravo, detonated on Bikini March 1, 1954.

No doubt all these documentarians are wrong, after all - they're all well known for their shoddy research.

But - whatever.


 * You may very well be correct. I have not had the time to look closely at the attributions from the sources. Just the same, there is no hurry, and no need to be out of sorts if an edit is reverted and a request made for sources. That is the usual expected format, and it falls under the category of Bold edit, Revert, Discuss, which is the mechanism wikipedia uses to try to minimize edit warring. Basically, if material is introduced you must be able to verify it by reliable sources. Otherwise it is not considered reliable.  So, no problem, you provide the source evidence and move on.  It is only a problem if there are conflicting sources, or divergent opinions as to what is the best source and so forth, as one might find in political questions and the like. You should not feel at all offended if someone asks you to provide a source.  It does not mean they think you are wrong, it just means they want to see where the information is coming from. Now you sound like you are well versed in this material, but one cannot count oneself as a reliable source, no matter how expert you might be.  That is because anyone could make a claim of expertise, but for the encyclopedia the expert referenced has to be one that anyone could reference, such as a book, an article or some other sourcing.


 * As to the identity of an editor, anyone can edit wikipedia, and they are allowed to be anonymous. In fact, most editors are, and use a username for the work they do here, rather than their real name.  An IP editor is one who works on wikipedia without having created a username, other than the IP address given them.  These editors usually are less active, but they have as much right to edit as any other.


 * The bottom line is we want the encyclopedia to be as good and reliable as we can make it, and correcting errors is something that is definitely desired. As I said before there is no hurry. This we all be resolved very soon, I am sure.  Hope that helps.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Lew Sheen (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Gunbird - Thanks for the wise words. I'm only slightly miffed, for one simple reason. In my opinion the source listed for the video in question is far less reliable than the ones I mentioned when I made the edit. If you go here https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AOperation_Castle_-_Nectar_-_Detonation.ogv you'll see that sonicbomb.com is listed as the source of the video. Following the link to sonicbomb.com takes you to a page where they attribute the video to 'Trinity and Beyond', one of the sources that I cited when making my edit - AND which identifies the shot as Castle Bravo!


 * In addition to 'Trinity...', I listed 2 separate PBS documentaries (both easily found online) which show the very same footage and identify it as Castle Bravo - 'Secrets of the Dead: The World's Biggest Bomb' and 'The Race for the Super Bomb'. Also identifying the footage as Castle Bravo is the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project video report titled 'Military Effects Studies on Operation Castle' - which I ALSO cited!


 * To me the sole source justification by which my edit was reverted is suspect as their identification source ('Trinity...') is CLEARLY misquoted, and therefore sonicbomb.com a suspect source. Meanwhile, there has been no meaningful demonstration that the sources I cite are incorrect.


 * As I see it, the editor who reverted my edit is guilty of all the things that are given as reasons for reverting my edit!


 * Anyway, like I said - it's really not that big a deal to me. It's a pretty arcane area of interest, and no doubt still shrouded in some level of secrecy and deliberate misdirection. In other words - few would care, and it's unlikely that irrefutable proof either way would be found. To me the documentaries and official government footage are proof enough.


 * Thanks again for chiming in here, I sincerely appreciate it.

-- Lew Sheen (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure of a couple of things here. Someone (apparently seeking anonymity) reverted this page, back to including misidentified footage which is actually of Castle Bravo - NOT Nectar. Same person asked for references and justification for my edit. Same person did not include information about who they are or justify THEIR edit or the provenance of the footage in question.

My references are clearly listed in my post below. Do these references not meet the standard for credible sources?

For an additional reference, please view the following film credited to the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project titled 'Military Effects Studies on Operation Castle'. Please pay careful attention to the video and audio starting at :50 seconds. Note the arrowhead shaped island visible in the lower right corner of the video. Also note the map discussed and shown starting at 2:27. It seems clear that the arrowhead-shaped island is Namu Island in Bikini Atoll. This also agrees with the animations which purport to show the locations of the shots.

According to the same film, the Castle shot detonated on Enewetak was detonated on a barge on the lagoon. In addition, the map of Enewetak shown has no island that matches the arrowhead shaped island in the footage in question. Further, based on the line of atoll material above sea level, the footage strongly implies that it is a land shot as it's right on the line of the land 'necklace' of the atoll.

I am also a recording engineer, and in my professional opinion the audio quality of the accompanying narration is consistent with the technologies and methodologies in use at the time. There is a slight distortion of the vocal in the audio track, totally consistent with over-driven tubes (even-order harmonics) which does not sound like later transistor-produced, solid-state distortion. In other words - if someone faked the audio they went to great lengths to do so.

Also note the unique 'top-knot' produced by the detonation. In my lengthy viewing of atomic test footage, this is the only example I can remember seeing which exhibits this phenomenon. It would seem to be thermally-induced (note the rapid rate at which it rises - faster than the fireball propagation) and therefore likely a product of an extremely large detonation.

The narrator characterizes the shot as "1,000 times the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima". The yield of the 'Little Boy' device - the uranium-gun weapon which was detonated over Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 - is widely described as having been 16 KT (kilotons TNT equivalent). This is within .6% of the yield ascribed to Castle Bravo 15 MT (megatons TNT equivalent). Castle Nectar is described as a 1.8 MT shot: Only ~ 100 times the yield of Little Boy. Off by a factor of 10!

Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti9xmuW6QiM

I suppose that this film could have been deliberately altered to confuse belligerent researchers, but in my personal and professional opinion, arrived at after after careful examination, and IF I trust that the above film is factual, then it CLEARLY identifies the footage in question as belonging to Castle Bravo - detonated at Bikini Atoll on March 1, 1954. If it's deliberately misleading, there is most likely no way to correctly identify the footage, and if it can be proved that shot footage identification falsification is occurring then it follows that Wikipedia should remove ALL shot identifications of US nuclear test footage - since it can then be logically inferred that ALL such videos are of suspect veracity.

During the course of the over-2-hours of on-line research I did before I made the change, the only two places I could find referring to the video in question as the Castle Nectar shot were on Wikipedia and a blog in the UK. There is no reference cited as to the validity of this video being Castle Nectar anywhere, - therefore I believe I have shown 'Castle Nectar' to be a misidentification.

I'm also curious as to why someone would make such edits without leaving ID.

I would be content (if a little embarrassed) to be proven incorrect in this matter, but I am surprised that someone who chooses to remain anonymous would undo what is a well-researched, clearly justified, and properly documented correction - without any references that show that my research is incomplete or incorrect.

My only motivation here is to insure that Wikipedia maintains the highest impeccable standards of veracity. I don't want to argue - this doesn't mean that much to me, but I am slightly troubled that information that I perceive to be inaccurate and is certainly without provenance is here on this great site.

I want everyone to TRUST Wikipedia! Posting proven-false information is anathema to that goal. -- Lew Sheen (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Lew Sheen - I believe that the last video under the gallery section is actually Castle Bravo which was detonated at Bikini Atoll. Please provide definitive provenance references for included video, remove, or correct caption and move video clip to Bikini Atoll page.

References: See 1986's 'Trinity and Beyond - The Atomic Bomb Movie' - a USA documentary by Peter Kurlan, and 2011's 'Secrets of the Dead: the World's Biggest Bomb' produced by USA PBS affiliate Thirteen/WNET in New York, for two well-respected examples.

Additionally, according to Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive internet site, Castle Echo was the only device on the Castle series scheduled for detonation at Enewetak, and Castle Echo was cancelled after the Castle Bravo shot, which instantly rendered all 'wet' thermonuclear bomb designs obsolete. -- Lew Sheen (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Lew_Sheen

Deleted incorrectly identified video - video of shot ID'ed as Castle Nectar is in fact Castle Bravo which was conducted on Bikini Atoll.

Castle video under question, is it shot Nectar or Bravo?

 * The video in question has been attached, with the island in the bottom right of the frame under scrutiny, the identity of the island will decide the question of which explosion the video captures - Is it the island of Bogon OR the Island of Namu on Bikini atoll? I contend it's plainly Bogon/Bokon island as Namu island doesn't have that spearhead shape. Nor do I think the shape of Namu island was ever the same shape as the island captured in the video. Lew Sheen if you find a picture of Namu island with the same outline as the island in the video then you'd have some hard evidence that the video could be of the Bravo shot, until then, I doubt it's Namu.


 * The primary source of the video(linked below) - Armed Forces Special Weapons Project 'Military Effects Studies on Operation Castle - that Lew Sheen provided as suggestive that it is test shot BRAVO and the island is Namu, does in fact not identify the exact video footage as Castle Bravo, nor the island as Namu. You should note the narrator remains completely silent during the video in question, he doesn't characterize the video as castle BRAVO, he ONLY begins talking when a different camera starts capturing footage of Castle BRAVO's mushroom cloud, not before! That's no accident, as Bravo was over twice the expected yield, I doubt any close up video footage of it's fireball exists, as the camera operator in the filming plane would have been, most likely, blown out of the sky! I of course remain open to hard evidence that the island is Namu and the footage is of Bravo, Lew Sheen if you find any, then bring it here comrade, and we'll get to the bottom of this. It's good to work with you. The video presented by Lew as evidence ~ 1 minute in, another similar test shot from a different angle appears to be visible at 29:50 minutes in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti9xmuW6QiM


 * The only footage that I know exists for castle BRAVO's fireball was shot 50 miles away, and doesn't look like, or match up very well with, the video under scrutiny. It begins ~ 5 mins in. "H-Bomb Tests: Operation Castle pt1-2 1954 Department of Defense" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQEgndKhQ-U
 * [[Image:Ivy Mike - Elugelab pt2.jpg|thumb|Enewetak Atoll, after Mike shot. Note crater on left. Castle Nectar was detonated just north east of the Ivy Mike crater essentially on the coast of Teiter Island.]]




 * Lew Sheen (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your prompt reply. I acknowledge that there is little concrete evidence either way - this is the burden of identifying footage of nuclear test shots.


 * One important factor that I have experienced personally - the foreshortened visual distortion that occurs from a low-angle aerial video like the one under discussion. Namu (Bikini) viewed from directly above (as in the satellite image) may not seem to match the visible shape, but I think this is probably due to perspective foreshortening. I also acknowledge the possibility of 'artistic license' being a factor - that is, the filmmakers I've cited may have inserted sensational footage of another shot (Nectar) given the unavailability of trustworthy and verifiable Castle Bravo footage. However, I find it hard to believe that (at least) multiple PBS documentaries would do so without acknowledging that fact - which again leads me to the logical conclusion that if this is the Castle Nectar shot then it's likely that most of the available US nuclear test footage is of suspect identification.


 * In addition, the periods of silence in the official documentaries are clearly deliberate muting of the sound track for censorship purposes. Understanding that, and assuming that the accompanying video footage is in chronological order notwithstanding the audio censorship, the footage is implied to be Castle Bravo.


 * As far as video records being unavailable due to the destruction of surveillance aircraft and the deaths of crewmen on the same, that seems highly unlikely to me, as that would involve a coverup of American fatalities on a scale that our government has consistently proven incapable of accomplishing.


 * No doubt this is a deliberately murky area, and I can say with a high degree of confidence that this won't be verifiably resolved one way or the other - short of unambiguous government acknowledgement or verified statements by actual participants, both of which seem highly unlikely at this point!


 * Having said that, another phenomenon that I will attempt to investigate for my own edification is the scale of the fireball relative to the island(s - Namu or Bogon) in question. Careful research along this line of investigation may well decide the matter.


 * I appreciate that you take this seriously, and your observations are cogent and well thought out. They may or may not be correct, but I sense that they are well considered and thoughtful - and in a field of knowledge as arcane and murky as is this your care and thought is appreciated. You have given me pause - and highlighted the need for further research in my search for resolution of this ambiguity.


 * Peace - Lew Sheen (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting that a manned plane was actually that close filming the Castle BRAVO test, as the experimental nature of that device(the shrimp) probably made doing so a real bad idea. I'd be willing to wager the physicists told the Lookout Mountain Air Force Station filming guys, that trying to capture the fireball up close from the vantage point of a plane(with people on board) was absolutely out of the question. What I was suggesting, was that the mere fact that what looks like a manned plane with onboard camera men(judging by the indication of the slight camera panning done in the video at around the 5 second mark) was permitted to fly close to the point of detonation gives more evidence to it being castle NECTAR, a device with little pre-shot uncertainty in its estimated yield.
 * You bring up a good line of enquiry though, photographic scaling analysis with software such as google earth might help narrow down what that island is in the video, by comparing the ratio of the size of the fireball with the length of the island, correcting of course for Bogon island having been altered after the redwing seminole detonation on the coast of the island, blowing a crater into it, and scattering sand all over the place. I am less familiar with the detonation history of Namu island and Bikini Atoll in general, I've never read of any detonations on that island, have you? Some black and white 1950s images of Namu island, similar to the Elugelab picture above, should give us an idea on what that island looked like back then.


 * According to the equations in the book "the effects of nuclear weapons" by Samuel Glasstone and Philip Dolan, Castle Nectar's max nuclear fireball radius, which is reached near the last few seconds in the video above, before it begins to diminish in size, would've been 1 mile (1.6 km) [3.2 km in diameter] whereas Bravo's max fireball radius would've been  2.3 mile (3.7 km) [7.4 km in diameter].


 * As for this video potentially being mis-identified by documentaries such as PBS's Race for the Super Bomb, Secrets of the dead: the world's biggest bomb and Peter Kuran's Trinity and beyond, comrade, that's a serious problem that many many books and programs often fall afoul of. I've personally never seen any of those docs, at what point in 'trinity and beyond' is this video footage under analysis labelled? Before we try and email the director of that movie - Peter Kuran - are you 100% sure he labels the video as BRAVO? If so that's a shame, as it clearly isn't BRAVO, in my opinion. I bet emailing him, with a link to this page, might settle the issue. If he did falsely identify the video as the BRAVO test, it's not the first time nuclear detonations have been mis-identified. Off the top of my head, Richard Rhode's very popular book Dark Sun on the "hydrogen bomb" mis-identified Chagan (nuclear test) with the Soviet union's first detonation Joe-1, he mistakenly labelled Chagan as Joe-1. Images of test shot Upshot-Knothole Grable are also sometimes mislabelled as test shot Priscilla of Operation Plumbob. Thankfully all these instances have been discovered, although I feel that now this Castle nectar/Bravo also needs to be added to this worrying list. This problem sadly seems to be getting ever more endemic as time passes. Lets hope our scrutiny on the provenance of each image and video marks the beginning of a new wave against that disturbing trend.


 * Let me know how the scaled satellite imagery analysis goes, direct your responses to this page.
 * Respectfully
 * 86.45.205.13 (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You two are both are much better at this nuclear testing detective work than I. With the searching I was able to do I could not find anything approaching confidence for an answer. I will follow along and will be interested to see if you can nail it down. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It, to me anyway, is pretty evident that the video under scrutiny is indeed NECTAR, but I'm not comfortable with just feeling pretty confident that is is NECTAR. However, just to communicate why I'm pretty confident, is, you just have to open the video, hit play, then drag the video back to 0:00 and let it play for 1 second to see the island of Bogairikk, the connecting causeway to the larger island of Bogon and therefore ground zero/the hypocenter being approximately below the "I" in Teiter (island) in the above black and white photo. However I always try and keep and open mind, so would love to be proven wrong with some evidence, and anyway, we need a strong bit of evidence, as like I've said, I'm not comfortable with just being pretty confident about it.


 * I used to have google earth on my computer but got rid of it, but it did have a nifty ruler function that allowed one to quickly find out the rough dimensions of certain things, like islands. Anyone with it, or a better program, on their computer should be able to quickly tell which Island it is with the information I supplied above.


 * A photo of the Namu island chain, as a counterpart to the black and white Elugelab island chain photo above, would be required to satisfactorily settle it to a high degree of certainty. After which point we can start thinking about mailing Peter Kuran and/or making a note to the trinity and beyond page stating that Kuran likely mislabelled the NECTAR shot as BRAVO, that is, when Lew Sheen gets back to us on exactly when in that documentary the mislabelled occurs. I respect Kuran for spending the time and increasing the quality of these old 1950s films, but mistakes can be made, it's no biggie, we're all fallible, but for sanities sake they should always be corrected, nothing worse than misinformation being spread and causing confusion for generation after generation.
 * 86.41.239.213 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why Lew Sheen isn't responding here in this section anymore, in any case, definitive proof that it is NECTAR can be found by analysing the brightness output of the fireball vs time elapsed. This radiometer method is used in bhangmeters. I, being a poor guy, don't have the necessary equipment or software to take the stock film and have it graphed for me on a computer. Something like a photoresistor hooked up to graphing software should give us a decent plot. That's the most certain method for determining if it's the ~2 megaton NECTAR or ~15 megatons BRAVO. If only I wasn't poor, I'd probably have this done already, write up a paper on it, sigh, but it is not to be. Maybe there's DIY arduino equipment that I could make capable enough of performing this task. It wouldn't have to be super accurate, just tell a ~2 megaton device from a 15 megaton one.


 * Now, turning to less definitive and cheaper methods of ID, having reviewed the primary source again, turns out to no surprise, the book "The effects of Nuclear Weapons" is bang on the nose with Castle BRAVO's max fireball radius being 2.3 miles, or as the narrator in the primary source footage states it, it's width - "was 4 miles"/ 4 mi in diameter 3 seconds after the burst (the fireball continues to grow after this, so 3 seconds post shot isn't necessarily the point when the fireball reached it's maximum size). In the primary footage the narrator states that the beginning of the footage, shot from "50 miles" away, marks the ~3 second after detonation time. Comparing this ~3 seconds post detonation footage with the above wikipedia video under scrutiny, also at the ~3 seconds after detonation point, one notices, the two fireballs look pretty much nothing alike.
 * H-Bomb Tests: Operation Castle pt1-2 1954 See 4:58 to 5:40 minutes onwards for the narrator to state "4 miles" at "3 seconds" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQEgndKhQ-U
 * 86.41.239.213 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Nicely done, 86.41.239.213. Tip of the hat.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry - Apparently my browser caching has been hindering timely responses to this discussion. Until now this evening (Mon., 3/10/14 - 11:05PM EDT) I haven't see this conversation on this page!


 * I have Google Earth on my PC, and tried to use it for research on this issue. However, Google Earth proved to be a dead end - as I was unable to find any data showing the islands as they appeared at the time in question (February 1954) - what a surprise!.


 * Many factors involved in accurately determining nuclear yield from a video...


 * Anyway - I have recently been irrefutably educated about the provenance of the video in question and I am satisfactorily convinced that it is indeed Castle Nectar.


 * I am gratified and encouraged to learn that Wikipedidia was correct and I was wrong. Thanks to all for challenging my incorrect assumptions in this matter.


 * Peace, Lew Sheen (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Who gave you irrefutable proof? Did you get a response back from Peter Kuran or something? What happens when the next person sees trinity and beyond and challenges the video being Nectar? We still have no solid reference to back it up. As for google earth, I thought you should be able to estimate the length of Bogon island with it, I know Bogon is now pretty broken up but you can still see roughly how long it was before, in 1954. With that measurement you can compare it to the size of the fireball in our video, knowing that the diameter of the fireball at it's maximum size is either 4.6 miles (if it's BRAVO) or 2 miles if it's NECTAR. Maybe I didn't explain that too well earlier. Only one ratio should fit - Bogon:NECTAR(2 miles wide) or Namu:Bravo(4.6 miles wide). Unless of course Namu is just over twice the length of Bogon, then we'd be back to square one as the ratios would be the same. Is it? Crude sure, but should add a bit of weight one way or the other. For example, maybe it's an entirely different Castle shot altogether?
 * 86.41.239.213 (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel I should check with my source before I publicly identify said source of the info I've been given. I will do that immediately and report back here.
 * Lew Sheen (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's all that necessary for you to divulge their identity, as your mail wouldn't be considered a reliable source, but I appreciate you emailing someone about it. Do they, by any chance, know of any declassified websites, books or reports that correctly labels the video? Because that would tie this all up, once and for all. And the icing on the cake would be if they know any of the camera men involved, or if it was a drone craft or blimp? I completely understand how someone could label it as BRAVO, as the primary source of the video displays it in such a way to create a great deal of ambiguity on what exact test shot it is. Sneaky Lookout Mountain Air Force Station, with their damned camera tricks! ha.
 * 86.45.192.251 (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard back from my source yet (March 18 2014, 8:00 PM, EDT) Either they're busy, or tacitly telling me they do not wish to be associated with ID'ing the shot as Nectar. No worries - each scenario is completely understandable and forgivable, IMHO.


 * I agree that an internet email would not constitute reliable proof anyway.


 * In their original email to me, they specifically described their source as 'Castle Military Effects'. I have viewed numerous copies (6+) of the "Military Effects Studies on Operation Castle" video that I've found online from various sources, and every one has been 'sanitized' (specifically, the sound track has been muted at key locations - presumably when the narrator was identifying the footage being displayed at the time of the mute) so that positive ID of the shots from that source doesn't seem possible. My guess (and it's only a guess) is that the documentarian in question was allowed to view versions that were either NOT sanitized or LESS sanitized. This doesn't appear to be an option available the the general public (us!).


 * Revisited Google Earth, available images of shot locations seem to be deliberately inconclusive. Enewetak view has a crystal-clear view, EXCEPT for a north-south swath of the image which includes the area in question that is of substantially less resolution. My conclusion: someone doesn't want fireball-diameter-to-visible-landform-dimensions analysis to be available.


 * Again, at this point I believe further research is useless - at least for an interested amateur sitting at his computer surfing the web looking for this info. Therefore, while I am personally satisfied that the shot shown is Castle Nectar, I can offer reliable no proof, and to your point above - the question is likely to continue to arise!


 * I'm out of here - no definitive answer available, and possible avenues of confirmation seem to be deliberately obscured. Some questions are better left unanswered!


 * Peace, Lew Sheen (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lew. That was quite the effort. Funny how even after all this time the information is left a little hazy on all available versions, and the original source materials do not appear available.  I wonder if they could be obtained directly from the national archives as material now open to the public.  I don't know if this is true here in the US, but the German Bundesarchive has online access and a search feature allowing the viewing of images.  I may see if it is possible.  In the meantime this discussion itself is solid enough to support the current identification, and if someone looks to change it we can refer them to it even after it is archived.  Thanks again.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Eniwetok is the name under which Wikipedia readers will be looking for this article. --Wetman 08:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Enewetak Article's Author?
Does any one know who the "I" that was controlling the radio control equipment in the article? I had a Great Uncle that served at Enewetak during the tests and I'm trying to find some more information on his involvement.

reuben.e.contreras@uscg.mil

I don't understand
"Technically a Spanish colony, Enewetak was not known to Europeans until visited in 1794 by the British merchant sloop Walpole...."

This statement makes no sense. If it was a Spanish colony, it was known to Europeans. If it was not known to Europeans, how could it be a Spanish colony? Perhaps the intention was, "...was not known to *other* Europeans..."? When and how did it become a Spanish colony?

What was the population when it was evacuated for nuclear testing?

Could someone with a reference please clarify this?

I can Clarify to you, The name of this is "black legend" some people, even today, want to manipulate history when involves Spain. Just study a bit and you will realize what the real true is. Did you notice that in "Columbus day" there are only italian flags and not one from the country that discover America? And how important is to prove that Columbus is italian, but not so important that was a spanish expedition? It´s jus a small example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.236.60 (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Tbarron 23:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A non-nuclear use of the atoll: capturing broken up spy satellite parts
There is a well-written news source (secondary source) article on the use of the lagoon of the Atoll to attempt to contain the broken up pieces of a de-orbited KH-9 Hexagon spy satellite in October 1973, here: The flight of the Big Bird (part 3), in The Space Review, February, 2011. Would be useful to any editor who wants to improve the Enewetak Atoll article, and perhaps add a bit of non-nuclear military history from the latter half of the 20th Century. Cheers.

Imagery
I have uploaded the following additional imagery, in addition to what is in use for this article.



All of this is NASA imagery. EO-1 imagery presents the best quality and has the least cloud cover, however the image size is such that two images had to be stitched together which is not ideal.

Additionally, we have some Landsat 7 imagery, which does capture everything in a single frame. However, despite being the single-best Landsat image of Enewetak Atoll without scanline artifacts in the entire archive (yes, I looked at them all), the cloud cover was still quite significant.

The final consideration lies in false-color IR vs. visible spectrum. I went with false-color IR to very clearly show the distinction between the islands and the nearby atoll that is underwater.

Overall I thought that the EO-1 image, despite the annoying stitching, was the best choice, but if anyone disagrees the alternatives are shown here for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Разрывные (talk • contribs) 05:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Cactus Dome
Much of the text regarding "Cactus dome" in version 520769465 of this article was closely paraphrased from the book Terror Within by Roger W. Marshall (p. 61). That text has been removed and replaced with new text and better citations. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear Tests
For what purpose it the tables listing all the nuclear tests done on Enewetak Atoll? I propose to delete them and just place references to the appropriate nuclear test series pages. SkoreKeep (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Doing so. I replaced the tables with a single summarized table. SkoreKeep (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your edit.
 * you removed all this.


 * Yes, I did. I don't see the point of enumerating all the tests that occurred there, particularly since clicking on the links in the summary table I left in their place would guide one to the tables that hold the same data and a whole lot more, in a place that dedicated to nuclear testing. Do you have some particular reason for liking the former tables that you haven't explained? SkoreKeep (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Reason: The summary table you created has addition errors & glaring omissions, one I noticed earlier is that it omitted Castle Nectar before I remedied that, and I've noticed it is WP:OR with all the trappings of OR, it is clearly more encyclopedic to list all the tests that occurred on and near the atoll at the end of the article. Now I'm sure you're attached to your faulty summary table, so how about a compromise that, once you fix the glaring errors in your summary table, then we keep her where she is but we include the full list as well?
 * 86.46.191.135 (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right about the Nectar error, for sure. Was there some reason you didn't point it out before so it could be fixed?  And please, do tell about the other glaring errors; I'm always ready to fix them, if and when.  If that's not good enough, then by all means, put the others back in, with or without the summary.  I'm not married to it, I said my piece up above.  I won't revert, you can have it the way you want it. I've got plenty of other work to do. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the table. You are right; there were some other errors. As I said, edit it to what you want. I'll stay out of it. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I fixed most the the glaring errors in your summary table just now and also put the full list back in.
 * 86.46.191.135 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Latitude/Longitude
The Lat/Lon given in the article is incorrect (it is apparently for Bikini). It should be: Latitude 11D 28min, Longitude 162D 15min  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedcampbell (talk • contribs) 12:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Latitude/Longitude
The Lat/Lon given in the article is incorrect (it is apparently for Bikini). It should be: Latitude 11D 28min, Longitude 162D 15min

- Ted A. Campbell Tedcampbell (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Economy / wildlife
What are they living on? What is there - flora fauna birds fish?

Apparent inconsistency in List of nuclear tests at Eniwetok section
I think I understand what the summary table is trying to say, but the "Total Yield" column is inconsistent and may confuse readers. If I've got it right, the entries for each series of tests give the total yield for that series, whether or not they were conducted in or near Enewetak (e.g. 48 megatons for the Castle series.) But the final entry, with the total over all the test series gives 31.8 megatons. So that's clearly excluding tests which weren't conducted near Enewetak. In contrast, in the "Count" column the numbers for each series do add up to the figure given in the final (total) row. It would be clearer if the numbers were revised or some clarifying text were added, but I'd prefer to leave that to someone more familiar with those series of tests. If I did it myself, I'd probably make a mistake; I'm not even sure what "near" the atoll means in this context. Fcrary (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Mike Crater is joined by Koa
The two large craters on the north reef are Mike and Hardtack Koa not Castle Nectar which was shot in Mike crater 65.102.101.3 (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)