This is somewhat off topic but . . . Here is a clever parody of revisionist history. It is about the atomic bomb:
http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/netsam/revisionist_history.html Every statement in this document is technically correct, but the overall impression it gives is ridiculous. People often use this technique to denigrate cold fusion and other controversial science, and also to justify conspiracy theories. I like the way the author keeps swapping the subject, in a sort of intellectual game of Three-card Monte, going from uranium to plutonium to hydrogen bombs, treating them as if they were the same thing. In cold fusion the equivalent technique would be to talk about the lack of neutrons one moment, Rossi's results the next, and then to say, "and yet no commensurate helium production has been reported by Rossi." Some sentences from the document: 1. Is there any evidence that a thermonuclear device exploded over Hiroshima in 1945? No, absolutely none. According to leading historians and physicists, the thermonuclear bomb was not invented until years after the supposed detonation over Japanese territory. 2. Is there any evidence that a uranium-based "atom bomb" was ever dropped onto Nagasaki, Japan? Absolutely not. While many historians and journalists made this claim in the late 40's and early 50's, everyone now agrees that no such bomb ever exploded over Nagasaki. Yet there are some who still stubbornly cling to this supposed "fact." . . . - Jed
