The Philadelphia Experiment
50 Years Later REBUTTAL:
Note: What actually happened in the Philadelphia
Experiment has been highly exaggerated, although it is still very
interesting. Following is a quotation of a section of an article in
the "Journal of Scientific Exploration", Volume 8, Number 1,
Spring, 1994. Copyright 1994 Society for Scientific Exploration.
"Articles may be photocopied for noncommercial usage such as research,
teaching, distribution as classroom material, etc." Address: ERL 306,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4055.
What Actually Happened in Philadelphia?
In an earlier assessment of the Philadelphia Experiment
data, the author offered the tentative conclusion that the story was,
in part, based on fact: the Navy may have been involved in
technically-advanced, classified tests in the Fall of 1943 (Vallee,
1991). These developments could have been
misunderstood or deliberately romanticized by people like Allende,
just as today we find tests of advanced flying platforms at Nellis Air
Force Base being misinterpreted by believers. Furthermore I
hypothesized that the experiments had to do with a radar
countermeasures test. Indeed a Raytheon advertisement published
thirteen years ago suggested that the corresponding technology was now
out in the open (Raytheon, 1980). This hypothesis, however, failed to
explain a few of the facts that highlighted the story. In particular
it did not account for the observed disappearance of the destroyer
from the harbor, for the mysterious devices brought on board under
extreme security precautions, or for the alleged disappearance of two
sailors from a nearby tavern. I called out to any one of my readers
who might have additional information. That is how I came to
correspond, and later to meet face to face, with Mr. Edward Dudgeon.
"I am a sixty-seven year old retired executive. I was in
the Navy from 1942 through 1945," began Mr. Dudgeon's letter (Dudgeon,
1992) explaining his purpose in contacting me (see Figure 3.) He
confirmed that the idea of an actual, secret
technical development was correct, but he said I was wrong
about a radar test. The truth, as he patiently wrote to me, was
simpler.
I was on a destroyer that was there at the same time as
the Eldridge DE 173.... I can explain all of the strange happenings as
we had the same secret equipment on our ship. We were also with two
other DEs and the Eldridge on shakedown in Bermuda and return to
Philadelphia.
My correspondent suggested a meeting, adding "I am not
looking for any compensation for this or media exposure. I just want
someone to know what I know before it is too late."
A few weeks later I met with Mr. Dudgeon, who produced
his identification and his discharge papers from the U.S. Navy. Over
the next two hours he gave me the details of his story and answered my
questions.
"You must realize that in forty three, the Germans had
been sinking our ships as fast as they came out of the harbors into
the Atlantic, which they called "the Graveyard." I was just a kid
then. In fact I falsified my birth certificate in order to join the
Navy in 1942. I was only sixteen at the time, turning seventeen in
December of 1942."
"What was your training?" I asked him.
"I studied electronics at Iowa State. The Navy sent me
to electronics school after boot camp. I graduated with the title of
"electrician's mate third class" in February of 43, and then I went
aboard ship in June 1943."
"Can you give me the name of the vessel?"
"Oh yes, the DE 50, U.S.S. Engstrom. It was a diesel
electric ship, as opposed to the DE 173, the Eldridge, which was steam
electric. These ships were run by the electricians. Our ship was put
in dry dock so they could install high-torque screws."
"Why the special equipment?"
"The new screws made a sound of a different pitch, which
made it harder for the submarines to hear us. They also installed a
new sonar for underwater detection, and a device we called a
"hedgehog" which was mounted in front of the forward gun mount on the
bow. It fired depth charges in banks of twenty-four to thirty in a
pattern, and could cover 180 degrees as far as
about a mile away. That was one of the secrets. Your book
Revelations was wrong about making the ship invisible to radar:
the Germans hadn't deployed radar at the time. We were trying
to make our ships invisible to magnetic torpedoes, by de-Gaussing
them. We had regular radar and also a "micro-radar" of lower
frequency. They could detect submarines as soon as they raised their
periscopes or came up for air. We could pick them up in the dark or in
fog as far as one or two miles away. That's when the Germans began to
lose their U-boats."
"How does this relate to the Eldridge?" I asked Mr.
Dudgeon.
"The Eldridge and the Engstrom were in the harbor
together," he answered. "In fact four ships were outfitted at the same
time: the 48, 49, 50 and the Eldridge, in June and July of 1943. The
Navy used to de-Gauss all the ships in dry dock, even the merchant
ships, otherwise the vessels acted as bar magnets
which attracted the magnetic torpedoes."
"What was the procedure for shakedown?"
"All four ships went to Bermuda, which as a relay for
the convoys to North Africa. There were several other destroyers
there. They would send us out to train us to convoy. We also had a
base in the Azores. The destroyers would go halfway and return to
their respective base. The shakedown was scheduled
for up to eight weeks but we only took five weeks to become
proficient. We were there from the first week of July to the
first week of August."
"What was your exact assignment on board?"
"I was electrican's mate third class petty officer. Our
job was to make the ship speed up, slow down or reverse according to
the bridge signals. Eight months later I was promoted to to second
class. Eventually we were sent to the Pacific. I served on that ship
for a year and a half, from June 1943 to November 1944. Then I was
sent to a special school at Camp Perry, Virginia."
"Whatever happened to the Eldridge?"
"We separated with her after the shakedown. The DE 48
and the Eldridge stayed in the Atlantic, based in Bermuda until early
1944, then they went to the Pacific theater too. The DE 49, which was
our sister ship, and the DE 50 headed through Panama mid-September
1943 and were in the Pacific theater thereafter. There was nothing
unusual about the Eldridge. When we went ashore we met with her crew
members in 1944, we had parties,
there was never any mention of anything unusual. Allende made
up the whole thing."
"What about the luminous phenomena he described?"
"Those are typical of electric storms, which are very
spectacular. St. Elmo's fire is quite common at sea. I remember coming
back from Bermuda with a convoy and all the ships being engulfed in
what looked like green fire. When it started to
rain the green fire would disappear."
"Did you hear of Einstein being involved with Navy
experiments at the time?"
"No. I believe that Einstein worked with the radar
development group, but he wasn't involved in running actual tests. At
least I never heard of it."
"How were the classified devices actually installed?"
"After the Navy commisioned the ship and we were ready
to go to sea, the National Bureau of Standards brought a master
compass in a box that looked like a foot locker and we made several
runs a sea in different directions to calibrate the ship's compass
against the master. That's the mysterious "box" that various reports
have mentioned.
"Who was Allende? Did you ever meet him?" I asked,
showing Mr. Dudgeon the various letters I had received from the man.
"I never did meet him. From his writings I don't think
he was in the Navy. But he could well have been in Philadelphia at the
time, serving in the merchant marine. He could also have been aboard a
merchant ship we escorted back to the Philly-Norfolk area during a
storm."
"What about the claim that generators were placed into
the hold?"
"Aboard all diesel-electric and steam-electric
destroyers there were two motors that turned a port or starboard
screw. Each motor was run by a generator."
"What was the procedure when the Navy de-Gaussed a
ship?"
"They sent the crew ashore and they wrapped the vessel
in big cables, then they sent high voltages through these cables to
scramble the ship's magnetic signature. This operation involved
contract workers, and of course there were also merchant ships around,
so civilian sailors could well have heard Navy
personnel saying something like,"they're going to make us invisible,"
meaning undetectable by magnetic torpedoes, without
actually saying it."
"What about the smell of ozone?"
"That's not unusual. When they were de-Gaussing you
could smell the ozone that was created. You could smell it very
strongly."
"What security precautions were taken?"
"Our skipper warned us not to talk about the radar, the
new sonar, the hedgehog, and the special screws. But you know how it
is, information will always leak out. Another classified
device we had was the "foxer," which we immersed in the sea off
the fantail and dragged half a mile to a mile behind the destroyer. It
gave off signals resembling the sound of a
merchant vessel's screw. This attracted the German subs which
fired acoustic-seeking torpedoes at it, giving away their
position and wasting ammunition."
"How long had all this secret equipment been available?"
"About six to eight months, as far as I can tell. By the
time we sailed out, submarine warfare had turned in our favor along
the East Coast."
"This doesn't tell us how the Eldridge disappeared into
thin air, or what actually happened in the tavern in early August
1943."
"That's the simplest part of the whole story," Mr.
Dudgeon replied. "I was in that bar that evening, we had two or three
beers, and I was one of the two sailors who are said to have
disappeared mysteriously. The other fellow was named Dave. I
don't remember his last name, but he served on the DE 49. The
fight started when some of the sailors bragged about the secret
equipment and were told to keep their mouths shut. Two of us
were minors. I told you I cheated on my enlistment papers. The
waitresses scooted us out the back door as soon as trouble began and
later denied knowing anything about us. We were leaving at two in the
morning. The Eldridge had already left at 11 p.m. Someone looking at
the harbor that night have noticed that the Eldridge wasn't there any
more and it did appear in Norfolk. It was back in Philadelphia harbor
the next morning, which seems like an impossible feat: if you look at
the map you'll see that merchant ships would have taken two days to
make the trip. They would have required pilots to go around the
submarine nets, the mines and so on at the harbor entrances to the
Atlantic. But the Navy used a special inland channel, the
Chesapeake-Delaware Canal, that bypassed all that. We made the trip in
about six hours."
"Why did the ships have to go to Norfolk?"
"Norfolk is where we loaded the explosives. Those docks
you see on the aerial photographs are designed for ammunition. The
Navy loaded ships twenty-four hours a day. They could load a destroyer
in four hours or less. I know that's where the Eldridge went, and she
wasn't invisible, because we passed her as she was on the way back
from Virginia, in Chesapeake Bay."
"In other words, the process was: out of dry dock, down
the canal, loading ammunition in Norfolk, back to Philadelphia, out to
sea to set the compasses and test radar and sonar gear?"
"Exactly. The Eldridge never disappeared. All four ships
went to Bermuda in July 43 and came back together in early August.
During that time we were also caught in a storm that created a display
of green fire accompanied by a smell of ozone. The glow abated when it
started raining."
REBUTTAL:
Jacques Vallee Said To Have Hoaxed Science and UFO
Community With His "Anatomy Of A Hoax: The Philadelphia Experiment"
From True X-File News Dr. Jacques F. Vallee, scientist and world reknown UFO
researcher, who was the model for the French scientist in the
movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" has been the target
of an ongoing private investigation which is now accusing him,
and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration,
Bernhard Haisch, of promoting research fraud. This stems from
the 1994 publication in the JSE of the paper ironically titled
"Anatomy Of A Hoax" which is supposed to be an attempt to debunk the
legendary Philadelphia Experiment story with the new testimony of a US
Navy sailor who claims that he was there and
the event never happened. The paper has been accepted by many
as the best research done on the work yet. Paranet Inc. owner,
Micheal Corbin, even got special permission from Vallee to
reproduce the article in its entirety and it can be seen archived at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7354/Hoax.txt The only problem, which
Special Civilian Investigator Marshall Barnes so easily proves, is
that the so-called witness lied, Jacques Vallee had lied about the
subject before himself, and when Barnes presented the proof of this to
JSE editor Haisch, he refused to do anything about it, even though
people were believing the witness was telling the truth. A bigger hoax
even than the alien autopsy film, because where the film hasn't been
conclusively proven to be a fake, Investigator Barnes sure proves
Vallee's witness is one.
"If you go to http://www.jse.com/v8n1a2.html you will
see the abstract for Vallee's article, 'Anatomy of a Hoax,' he begins.
Going to the middle of the third sentence you will see where he states
that claims by witnesses to the event have repeatedly been found to be
"fraudulent". It here that my case against Vallee begins, using his
own stated standard for truth. You will notice that he follows that by
saying that he has
interviewed a man who was on the scene "the night" that the ship
disappeared and he can explain it in minute detail. By going to
http://www.access.digex.net/~patin/philaj.html a site where one of
those who has been fooled by the fraud has erected a condensed version
of the article, you can read how this so-called witness, Edward
Dudgeon, meets Vallee. First at the 5th paragraph under the title of
What Actually Happened in Philadelphia, you will read how Vallee
states that he saw Dudgeon's "identification and his disharge papers".
In fact, a discharge certificate is reproduced in the actual journal
version of the article with Dudgeon's name on it. However, there is no
indentication that Vallee saw anything that proved that Dudgeon was on
the ship that he will claim to be on. We don't even know what kind of
'identification' papers Vallee saw. Birth certificate? Social Security
card? This is important because it establishes the uncertainty that
Edward Dudgeon is even Edward Dudgeon! When you see the following
evidence of his untruthful testimony, you'll understand why this issue
of identity is critical.
"If you continue reading about Dudgeon you will see at
the 12th paragraph below the title heading, at the beginning of the
5th line of the paragraph, Dudgeon says "Your book Revelations was
wrong about making the ship invisible to radar: the Germans hadn't
deployed radar at the time..." The time period in question is the
summer of 1943. As you can see by clicking on
http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rpy/keilcana.htm and
http://www.cnd.net/~kais/navy/deutsch2.jpg the German navy had
radar on top of their ships before WWII. By clicking on
http://www.cnd.net/~kais/navy/raiders.htm and scrolling down to
the third and fourth pargraphs under the heading: 'The "pocket
battleship" Admiral Scheer', you can read how these same radar
systems were used to kill and sink allied shipping and crew. It
is obvious that Dudgeon's comment is entirely without merit,
especially when you consider that the Germans had radar on their JU88
dive bombers which attacked and sank ships like the USS Landsdale, and
these were outfitted with such equipment in 1942. You can see evidence
of this by going to
http://www.cnd.net/~kais/ac/kampflug/ju88.htm and reading about
these planes and their cousins. By clicking where "BMW equipped
88G-1", "188E-2" and "188E-2" are underlined on that page you
can see for yourself that these plans were armed with radar.
The last one was the type that sank the USS Lansdale and
slaughtered the entire 580 man crew of the SS Paul Hamilton
(there is some question of that ship identity being correct but
the account which comes from the Department of the Navy. The
Lansdale did sink. See this daughter speak of her father who
survived it at ( http://wae.com/messages/msgs4275html )by blowing it
out of the water with torpedoe attacks. The same kind that the
picture's caption so plainly describes. Even German submarines had
been intended to get radar in 1941, had radar detectors in 1943 and
got radar in 1944. Around this time of Memorial Day it is a special
affront to the sacrfice of those who gave their lives to keep the
world free from Nazism in the face of weapons guided by the same radar
systems that Dudgeon claims that the Germans had not deployed. And
Vallee presents this liar as though he had checked him out."
If that isn't stunning enough to see that historic
evidence that directly contradicts Vallee's "witness", it gets worse.
Barnes showed us that by going back to
http://www.access.digex.net/~patin/philaj.html and scrolling
down to the tenth paragraph below the heading, we see that Dudgeon
claims that he was on the "DE 50, U.S.S. Engstrom".
Remember, Vallee himself has said nothing about seeing any
confirmation of this and we have already seen direct evidence
that this man cannot be trusted. Now he will lie again four
paragraphs further where he claims that the Eldridge(the shipped
allegedly used for the Experiment) and his ship, the Engstrom, and two
other ships went out on shakedown together the first week of July.
Barnes points out that this is the lie that would place Dudgeon as the
so-called witness that nothing happened. But, the official Navy
records for the Eldridge show that the ship wasn't even launched until
July 25, didn't get a commsioned crew until August 27 and then didn't
go on its shakedown cruise until September. It was the period between
July 25 and August 27 that a skeleton crew would have been used to do
the Experiment, seeing that it would be top secret and a skeleton crew
would not be listed as the official commissioned crew, making the
tracing of them as potential witnesses virtually impossible.Barnes
didn't have a direct link to the Navy records but sent us to
http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/asf1.htm to scroll down
where it says "TABLE 1 PX HISTORICAL SETTING" you will see the
dates "1943-July- 25--Eldridge launched(13)" and directly below
that "1943-Aug. 27--Eldridge commissioned-- New York (14,15),
and finally directly below that "1943-Sept.-- Eldridge shakedown and
escort duties through to late Dec.(16)". "I assure you that these
dates are accurate because they reflect the same information that I
got from three different published official Navy ship record sources,
as well as other books that have quoted the same records," he added.
We did some checking ourselves at a local library and found that he
was correct by looking in the Dictionary of Navy Warships from the
Naval Historical Center.
"Where is the peer-review that the JSE and Haisch have
so proudly bragged about? " Barnes points out. "Didn't anyone ask
Vallee for any evidence of this man's claims at all?" We guess not.
"This information, that I presented so far, effectively
rules Dudgeon out as a credible witness and destroys the validity of
Vallee's so-called "research", and his paper's thesis, because the
shakedown cruise that the Eldridge supposedly had with the Engstrom
didn't happen. We don't even know if Dudgeon was on the Engstrom. We
don't even know if Dudgeon is really even 'Dudgeon'!"
For most people that would be enough to convince them
but Barnes found more. Alot more, and remember, he didn't even supply
us with *everything*.
"As the paper with the ships dates suggests," he
continues, "there was indeed interest in invisibility by the US Navy.
By going back to Table 1 you will see the date of 1941-Dec. 7 where
Dunninger submits a ship invisibility idea to the Navy
after Pearl Harbor. Dunniger was a magician who claimed that he
knew a way to make a ship invisible by using the sun's rays.
This idea would become classified by the U.S. Navy and to this
day has never been revealed. If you go back to
http://www.access.digex.net/~patin/philaj.html and scroll down
to the 21st paragraph below the heading you will see Vallee ask
Dudgeon "What about the luminous phenomena he described?" This
question is in reference to the glow that was said to have
enveloped the ship before it became invisible.Dudgeon responds
by saying that the glow was really a coronal discharge phenomena
called "St. Elmo's Fire". Scroll down to the last paragragh before it
says End Of Quotation, and Dudgeon repeats the lie about the shakedown
cruise dates and then repeats his statement about the St. Elmo's Fire.
You'll notice that he makes no mention in either place about a ship
appearing to "be gone" due to St. Elmo's Fire, however in the TV
program, Mysterious Forces Beyond, Dudgeon is asked on camera, by
Jacques Vallee himself, the same question about anything happening to
the ships during shakedown.Dudgeon's response is as follows, and I
quote "Then this ship off to the distance, when that miosture hit and
shorted out the ship,looked like it disappeared. The only thing that
you could see was the white wake off the bow and sliding down along
side the ship, but as far as the ship's concerned, it appeared to be
gone!" I would like your indulgence here since I don't have the
capacity to play you the video of this incident, which I do own a copy
of, but I think that I have earned the right to not have to have every
piece of critical evidence availble here now. However, in reference to
Dudgeon's TV show quote, I would like for you to compare it to this
quote by the original eyewitness to the experiment(whom I find has
credibility problems as well, but
many others have made similar statements concerning this
incident)by going to http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/tech1-2.htm
and scrolling
down the 12th paragraph where it begins with "I watched the air
all around the ship...turn slightly, ever so slightly darker
than all the other air..." In that paragraph he ends by saying
"I watched as thereafter the DE 173 became rapidly invisible to
human eyes. And yet, the precise shape of the keel and the
underhull of that...ship REMAINED impressed into the ocean water as it
and my own ship sped along somewhat side by side and close to
inboards..." The similarities between the two accounts, I feel, are
obvious and whether or not the Dudgeon account is true, the purpose
was to give a rational explanation for the later witness account. In
other words, to Mr. and Mrs. Skeptic at home it would be a simple
matter of 'Oh, Marge. See? It wasn't a top secret military project
that made the ship invisible. It was only St. Elmo's Fire, a common
incident of nature!'"
Yeah, we all know that those skeptics are just as
gullible as everyone else, you just have to have the right bait. But
still, Barnes continued with the methodical determination of a
prosecuter(Ken Starr should take notes):
"Notice, however, nothing of the testimony that Dudgeon
gave on St. Elmo's Fire making a ship invisible is in the JSE account
as we have already seen. Why leave it out? I now refer you to the full
account of the article, reproduced with the direct permission of
Jacques Vallee (an apparent violation of the
standard JSE policy of any article they publish being owned by
them and not reproducible elsewhere)given to one Micheal Corbin
at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7354/Hoax.txt where if you
scroll all the way to the bottom and then scroll up until you
see the word "Acknowledgments" anding alone (I'm sorry but this
is the fastest way to get you there) you will see directly
below that that Vallee thanks various people for their contribution to
his article. One of those is Vice-Admiral
William D. Houser, who is credited with his "willingness to
review the manuscript of this article". Now, without getting
into comments attributed to the Vice-Admiral by Vallee about
there not being anything high-tech or beyond state of the art
on the ship(a ludicrous comment because the state of the art
during the war was changing all the time and even Dudgeon said
that they had new types of depth charge launchers installed,
etc and no one has ever said that the equipment allegedly used
for the Experiment was of such a nature anyway) the issue at
hand here is the reviewing of the manuscript before publication
by the Vice-Admiral. Vallee uses this as if it would give the
article more credibility. However, the opposite is the case.
Consider this: if the Philadelphia Experiment did happen, then
it still top secret. After all according to Popular Science
Magazine, May 1996, the Yahudi project to make B24 Liberators
invisible in the daylight sky to surfaced submarines was
classified until the mid '80s. This means that the Navy would
officially deny that the Experiment ever took place, which it
does as you saw at the ONR web site. More to the point however
is the fact that I checked with US Navy personnel who confirmed
for me that if, an officer was given the opportunity to "review
a manuscript" that contained information that revealed the
nature of something that was classified or top secret, that
that officer would be required to remove that information from
the article if he could. Furthermore, there were actual
policies in place, before the article was written, which were
only referred to me in a fax, but that I, with the use of some
snazzy search word "kung-fu", was able to locate for you to see
for yourselves at
http://www.dodssp.daps.mil/Directives/table29.html where you
can scroll down to OPNAV 5510.161 (thanks eleven from the
top)and see that that document deals with "Witholding Of
Unclassified Technical Data From Public Disclosure".
"The bottom line is simply this," Barnes emphasized, "If
Dudgeon says that St. Elmo's Fire made a ship invisible, that may fool
skeptics, but for review in a science journal where the purpose of the
article is to persuade the readers into thinking that the whole story
is a hoax so that none of them gets any ideas about trying to
reproduce it themselves, then Dudgeon's statement becomes an
*intelligence* problem because if St. Elmo's Fire made a ship go
invisible then there is no reason why that couldn't be studied and
done as a miltary
project! It makes the ONR statement that "such an experiment
would only be possible in the realm of science fiction" out to
be a lie(which it is anyway)and for that reason Dudgeon's account,
which I know he gave because I saw him in my video
tell it right to Vallee's face in response to a direct question
that Vallee asked him. This was filmed in 1993, according to
another participant in the program and the article was published in
1994. According to the article, Vallee met Dudgeon in 1992. When
Vallee asked Dudgeon the question it came off as if it were rehearsed.
In other words, Vallee knew this story about Dudgeon's claim about the
St. Elmo's Fire making the ship invisible before the article was
published, and felt it was so compelling that he had Dudgeon repeat it
on TV. So why wasn't it in the article? I submit it is for the very
same reason that I claim, and if Houser didn't remove it himself I
suspect that he told Vallee it should come out. It is obvious, after
all, that Vallee was committed to disinforming anyone he could about
this issue."
"The bottom line is simply this," Barnes emphasized, "If
Dudgeon says that St. Elmo's Fire made a ship invisible, that may fool
skeptics, but for review in a science journal where the purpose of the
article is to persuade the readers into thinking that the whole story
is a hoax so that none of them gets any ideas about trying to
reproduce it themselves, then Dudgeon's statement becomes an
*intelligence* problem because if St. Elmo's Fire made a ship go
invisible then there is no reason why that couldn't be studied and
done as a miltary
project! It makes the ONR statement that "such an experiment
would only be possible in the realm of science fiction" out to
be a lie(which it is anyway)and for that reason Dudgeon's
account, which I know he gave because I saw him in my video
tell it right to Vallee's face in response to a direct question
that Vallee asked him. This was filmed in 1993, according to
another participant in the program and the article was published in
1994. According to the article, Vallee met Dudgeon in 1992. When
Vallee asked Dudgeon the question it came off as if it were rehearsed.
In other words, Vallee knew this story about Dudgeon's claim about the
St. Elmo's Fire making the ship invisible beSo why, when he was
confronted with this evidence and more, did
Haisch refuse to put a disclaimer on the JSE web page for the
article abstract? We'll have that answer, supported once again
with Marshall's stunning style of overwhelming evidence, when
we continue this story in a second part. In the meantime,
Marshall is intensifying his investigation to include Bernhard
Haisch, the Journal of Scientific Exploration, the Society for
Exploration, Edward Dudgeon and those credited for supplying
information in Vallee's "Anatomy" fraud. We'll have more as the
events unfold.
To: "Michael F. Corbin" To: Mr. Michael Corbin, Director ParaNet Information
Services, Inc.:
Michael Corbin wrote: Is this for real? Usually legitimate press releases have
contact information in them. I have never heard of Marshall
Barnes, nor the TRUE.X-FILE.NEWS Internet News Service.
We're new. Our e-mail address was attached. He's been
around for a while. See http://ufomind.com/people/s/strom for an
example.
What is more perplexing is the strong language that is
used by whoever wrote this press release without sufficient
information to make such radical claims.
The claims weren't "radical". We provided links to exact
evidence to substantiate the charges that Mr. Barnes made.
That's more than Vallee did or that you have done here so far.
For example, I see nothing from Jacques Vallee or myself
in response or refutation about these claims contained in the release.
If you could refute them, you would be doing it now.
Vallee has been silent on the issue and has refused attempts to defend
himself because he can't. You obviously haven't even looked at the
evidence or you wouldn't be referring to "claims". These are "facts"
based on the words and statements that Vallee and Dudgeon made, that
Vallee, the JSE, Bernhard Haisch, you
(though unwittingly)and others have promoted around the world
in the JSE and the internet. The statements that were made in
the Vallee article and promoted in part by you, have now been
proven to be false with evidence which we provided links to.
What's so radical about that? About telling the truth?
It is usually customary, and professional, to make
inquiries of those being accused before printing such outrageous
allegations.
Again, your statements and those by Vallee, have been
public and were linked to in the release. Your statements and his are
on record. The only outrageous thing is that Vallee actually thought
that he wouldn't be caught and that you have the
audacity to act as if someone has said something without
substantiation. Yet you still have failed to quote one word from our
article to back your accusations up.
Anyway, I am unable to take this seriously until we have
some way to contact Mr. Barnes and can investigate him further to
determine where he is coming from.
You can't take it seriously because you have egg on your
face. Otherwise, you wouldn't be making yourself appear more
ridiculous. The evidence cited in the article was compelling
enough for Jeff Rense of Sightings On The Radio to post the
article as a rebuttal, something that he wouldn't do, I'm sure,
if the claims were simply as you describe them. The way that
you're making these wild protests without any kind of examples
of the ridiculous charges that you're making is keeping me from
taking *you* seriously.
At this particular point I can say that I do not take
too kindly to the use of my name in connection with anything of this
sort.
You're the one that connected your name to this matter
when you said that is was "good research". That's not our fault. You
chose to stand by it. You can walk away now.
I have known Jacques Vallee for several years and have
found him to be one of the most professional and thorough UFO
researchers I have ever met.
What better a profile for someone to engage in such a
deception? Who would benefit from such an act? Certainly not
Vallee. Ever hear of "agent in place"?
I have never known him to be dishonest or deliberate in
anything underhanded or fraudulent.
Well you do now. There's a first time for everything. If
Barnes hadn't investigated it, Vallee would still be viewed that way
by most. But the evidence speaks for itself. Evidence which it appears
that you have failed to look at from an article that you have failed
to even quote from.
It appears that Mr. Barnes is a rank amateur sleuth with
an axe to grind as he has never contacted me or Dr. Vallee, as far as
I know,
No Mike, you're obviously the rank amatuer here, not Mr.
Barnes. He put together a professional package of evidence that was 89
pages long and then took the time to try to find as much of it as he
could on the web so that an electronic document could be assembled
that would allow anyone to instantly link to the evidence to see it
for themselves. He even provided links to various reproductions of the
Vallee article so that no one would think that he was quoting it out
of context. That's
profesionalism of the highest order. Amateurism is claiming
that something that you hadn't even check-up on was "good
research". *Rank* amateurism is your coming in here making wild
accusations about evidence that you've obviously been too lazy
or frightened to face up to yourself. In addition, you're
talking about things that you know nothing about. We said in
our article that Barnes had contacted Haisch and that then
Haisch and Vallee conspired to suppress the knowledge that the
article was fraudulent. What? You mean they didn't let you in
on it? What wasn't in the article is that Haisch and Vallee
have known about this for nearly 6 months, and that Haisch even
failed to notify SSE founder and President Peter Sturrock that
there was a problem that would result in serious ramifications
for the image of the Society if it got out. Barnes initially
sent Haisch an 8 page letter outlining the evidence that shows
the premeditation, method, motive, opportunity and execution
behind Anatomy Of A Hoax as a di information project. He did so
so that Haisch could put a disclaimer on the JSE web page for
the Anatomy article, effectively distancing themselves from the
fall-out to come. Haisch refused to do so as we have already
cited despite being told that endorsement of the article would
lead to questions of ethics, etc. for him and the JSE. If the
intent of this scam(trying to prove the PE was a hoax) is so
important that it had to be attempted with fraud and lies,
important enough for Vallee and Haisch to not give a damn about
protecting the reputation of JSE and SSE, for Haisch to risk
his own reputation needlessly, what makes you think they'd give
a damn about you? You're just a casuality, Mike. You're
evidence that there were people decieved by what Vallee wrote.
You're evidence as to why Haisch should have done what over
twenty of the world's top scientific journal editors (JAMA,
Surface Review Letters, The Scientist and Nature, for
starters)have now stated that they would have done if evidence
that they had nwittingly published a fraudulent article had
been presented to them - notify their readers. You're evidence
that instead of looking at the evidence and evaluating it like
Jeff Rense did, that you have acted like an amateur and
resorted to calling names and making entirely unfounded cry
baby accusations. Why should Barnes bother to contact you? What
verification of anything could you provide? You were one of the
dupes! Barnes went to data bases and historical archives that
would support or condemn Dudgeon's claims. Barnes did an
investigation that, as far as I can tell, completely kicks-ass
and makes so-called researchers like yourself look like
wanna-be X-File detectives. You've made all these charges and
yet you haven't cited one example or quotation from our article
to back up the bull that you're slinging, so I'd would just
give it a rest. Evidence talks, Mike. You know how the rest of
it goes.
To determine the veracity of any statements made in
Vallee's article.
What was the need? You sure didn't determine the
veracity of the statements in the Vallee article before claiming that
is was "very good research by Jacques Vallee and others" (see
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7354/Hoax.txt see 3rd paragraph under
"Fowarded by:", 2nd line beginning with "I am...")and he gave you the
piece of trash himself! We had links to various other versions across
the internet. Haisch tried to defend the Anatomy article by saying it
was peer reviewed. Peer reviewed or not, the evidence proves that the
article is a fraud. No one's being quoted out of context.Barnes took
pains to be sure
to link to every statement that he refers to. Don't come crying
to us. You're Vallee's victim. He used you because he felt he
needed to. He played you like a CIA spook plays his field operatives.
He played you the way William Moore play Paul
Bennewitz, except not as bad. You should refer back to Vallee's
book Messengers of Deception where he learned how to do all
this stuff. At the top of page 189 where he says he still has a
lot to learn from his Major Murphy on how counter-intel ops
work. Better yet, go to the second and third paragraphs of page
203 where he shows how writers and editors with agendas could
accomplish disinformation cover-up objectives by hiding behind
rationalism and supposedly defending science with articles that
degrade UFOs and "other ridiculous subjects". Just insert the
JSE as the publication and Vallee and Haisch and their Aviary
pals over there as the editorial board, and you've got a
step-by-step description of what he tried to do with the JSE
and Anatomy Of A Hoax. The most incrimminating thing about all
of this is that he wrote of how he knew of this back in 1979.
Looks like Anatomy was supposed to be his dissertation, a
deliberate application of the disinformation skills that he
admits that he learned. Barnes is the one that sent us all of
this stuff. All the evidence is what Barnes found. We checked
it out to see if it was all true and it was. No, Barnes is no
amateur. If the whole deal hadn't been so simple, just checking
out Dudgeon's statements, I'd say Barnes is a genius. You're
just one of Vallee's gullible dupes, who isn't even man enough
to stand up, admit that he'd been fooled and demand an
explanation from Vallee. You're pathetic. Need a hanky?
ParaNet posted the article, as it does with many
articles, with a strict disclaimer and provides any information that
it does with an understanding that it is provided as a public service
to our readers, with no editorial control, therefore neither I, nor
ParaNet, was "hoaxed" by Dr. Vallee.
Yes you were, when you backed it publically by saying it
was "good research." The article even had obvious logical flaws in it.
When Dudgeon's story was checked out against Navy records, historical
archives, WWII era photos, action reports, everything that we provided
links to and more, it completely fell apart. It's the biggest sham
that I've ever seen, even bigger than the Hitler Diaries or the Alien
Autopsy flick
because it was so easily disproven, so much so that Jeff Rense
immediately contacted us when he found out, to get permission
to post it as a rebuttal at his site. Rense is a man I can
respect. You're the one claiming to be an investigator and you
got stung. Get over it. This isn't your fight. Barnes is after
Vallee, etc. and he was even after the ONR and set-up one of
their PR officers so that the guy would lie to him in writing.
Barnes isn't after you. You don't *want* Barnes after you. All
that's going to happen if you get in the way is more bad
publicity for you because I've already been told that there is
increasing media interest in the story. We weren't even the
first to break it. If you try to defend Vallee, you're just
going to do yourself more damage. It's an OBVIOUS hoax. The
evidence is overwhelming. It's clear to everybody who looks at
it. Get a clue.
Michael Corbin Jack Hudson, Publisher True.X-File.News
Marshall Barnes Responds To Michael Corbin 6-8-98
For Immediate Release from True.X-File.News
On June 7, 1998 True.X-File.News found a message from
Michael Corbin, President of ParaNet Information Services
To Mr. Michael Corbin:
For the past four years I have taken upon myself and
with the urging of others wanting to know the truth, an investigation
of the so-called Philadelphia Experiment.
Seeing the vast wasteland of rumor, tall tales, half
baked research and utter garbage from all parties involved up until
the time of 1994, I felt that the only way to conduct a true
investigation was to start where the Experiment would have
started, as an idea of military significance to a nation at
war. If the evidence that the US Navy would not attempt such a
project or could not attempt such a project existed, it would
prove that the event probably was a hoax. However, if there
existed evidence that the military was indeed interested in
such capability, that said capability was based in sound science, and
that said capability was technologically possible at that time, it
would go a long way toward establishing a plausible basis for the
event to have actually taken place in some form. The only capability
that I was interest in pertaining to said Experiment was optical
invisibility, because that is what has been vehemently denied by the
US Navy and Office of Naval Research. The issue of radar invisibility
has not been denied as having been possible at the time by a number of
people including Jacques Vallee and a Public Affairs officer from ONR
officially assigned to deal with inquiries that I had made there. I
have determined through my investigation that the issue of radar
invisibility as a possible explanation for the events described is
part of the Official cover story that when pressed, those engaged in
the cover-up have consistantly fallen back to.
Once that I had determined that there was extensive
evidence in support of the idea that there was indeed a military
motivation, a scientific basis and a technological capability
to pursue a project that would make a ship invisible to sight,
I turned my full attention to the article by Jacques F. Vallee
that has been known as Anatomy Of A Hoax. I found the article
to be a pale and pathetic attempt at propaganda which employs
tactics of charater assassination, has lapses in logic, errors
in fact, and that a senior high school class in political science at
any decent prep school could deconstruct into the obvious morass of
contradictions that it is upon proper analysis. Example: Vallee says
that all the other witness' have been proven to be "fraudulent",
taking an extensive portion of the article to try to prove that Carl
Allen was not a reliable witness. Yet, he does absolutely no such
thing to establish that Edward Dudgeon is a reliable witness. If he
had, he would have determined that Dudgeon in fact was not, unless of
course, Vallee was in on it with Dudgeon. That Vallee leads the reader
to believe that he has determined that Dudgeon is a reliable witness,
lends credibility to suspect Vallee's motives. That Dudgeon says that
he partied with the crew of the Eldridge in 1944 in the Pacific and
that none of them said anything about the Experiment, is another
obvious misrepresentation because of the fact that if the Experiment
had taken place in August, that would have been a skeleton crew and
not the official commissioned crew used and so they would have had
nothing to say at parties in the Pacific about it anyway. However,
that is what anaylsis of some of the article shows when the article is
taken at face value.
When the statements are investigated they reveal
themselves to be "fraudulent", using Vallee's own criteria for the use
of the word, because the Eldridge didn't go out on shakedown until
September of 1943 not the first week of July of 1943 the way Dudgeon
claims and the official US Navy records show that the Eldridge crew
wasn't even in the Pacific in 1944 so Dudgeon couldn't have partied
with them then the way that he claimed. That's just part of the myriad
of inaccuracies and
misrepresentations that appear in what has been lauded by some
as the "best research on the subject" and the story of "what
really happened in Philadelphia".
But I'm not here to give a full lecture on why Anatomy
of a Hoax is the biggest piece of garbage that has been pawned off as
legitimate research that I have ever seen or the results of my
investigation into the Philadelphia Experiment. Why Anatomy *is* a
Hoax that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that all it takes to hoax
people like yourself and even avowed skeptics is to bait the hoax with
the right worm and you all will swallow and hang on for dear life. I'm
writing you because you had the unmitigated gall to call me a "rank
amateur sleuth" after I surpassed every level for evidence that Vallee
had set-up to
sucker you, UFO Sweden, and others into believing his hoax. So
I'm going to show you just what kind of rank I have by settling
it this this way once and for all:
1)You will get Jacques F. Vallee, Bernhard M. Haisch,
Edward Dudgeon, and William Moore along with myself on your radio
show.
2)We will all be sworn under oath to testify to our
involvement in the matters pertaining to and of the Philadelphia
Experiment by duly appointed and authorized officers of the courts in
the states in which we are located at the time of said program. These
officers will supply their names and pertinent
identification as persons authorized and bestowed with the power to
swear witnesses under oath with the penalties for perjury binding
prior to the program, to insure that at the time of the program, all
those duly sworn in shall in fact be under oath with the liabilities
for the penalties for perjury in place.
3)The line of questioning shall pertain to our
prospective involvement in the matters pertaining to the Philadelphia
Experiment. Cross-examination limited to the established area of
testimony will be allowed by any other party against any other party.
If any of us is found to perjure ourselves, that person will be duly
prosecuted under the criminal laws governing perjury in the state
where they were sworn in.
4)If any or all of the persons that I have stipulated,
fail to agree to this arrangement, I want a sworn affidavit from you
saying why they failed to comply with these conditions, or if you
failed to be able contact them.
5)In the case that any or all of these persons fail to
comply with these conditions, and upon recieving from you sworn and
separate affidavits for each person's failure to comply, I will still
appear on your program, under oath and testify to what I know and have
discovered with the addition of your being supplied with a full and
documented account, complete with 13 pages of accusations and
supportive statements, 89 pages of labled and numbered evidence color
coded to match each set of
accusations, and 10 minutes of audio, constituting evidence
against Jacques Vallee, Edward Dudgeon, and Bernhard Haisch,
plus 27 pages of statements showing that Bernhard M. Haisch
acted in a manner not in keeping with the expected behavior of
a science journal editor as set forth by 23 of his peers from
the world of scientific journalism. Together this will constitute
direct evidence that the Anatomy of a Hoax article was a deliberate,
premeditated, disinformation work executed using the foreknowledge of
propaganda, disinformation and counter-intelligence tactics by Jacques
F. Vallee and how in
fact this work mislead and decieved people through its promotion and
dissemination on the World Wide Web and Internet with the full support
of Bernhard M. Haisch. It will also provide complete, verifiable
evidence that my testimony under oath is truthful which you wil be
able to confirm to your listening audience.
If you no longer have a radio program, I suggest that
you attempt to make arragements for this to take place on the Jeff
Rense or Art Bell program. Let the record show that I don't care whose
show it is, but if it isn't yours, YOU STILL HAVE TO BE THERE. And if
it's not your show, YOU have to be sworn under oath as well because I
want to know exactly how, when, and
under what circumstances, and what was said between you and
Jacques Vallee when he gave you permission to distribute that
garbage across the internet.
Let it be known that if Jacques F. Vallee, Bernhard M.
Haisch, Edward Dudgeon and William Moore, voluntarily fail to comply
with these conditions, that they have failed to show themselves to be
innocent of the things for which I will accuse them and will present
evidence thereof, and that they have allowed those accusations to
stand since appearing on your program will cause them no undue expense
or hardship.
Let it also be known, Mr. Corbin, that if you fail to
carry out *this* investigation, you are guilty of obstructing an
inquiry into the truth of this matter for which you made
unsubstantiated, unwarranted, and erroneous accusations against
my character and methods, and that I am loathe to even consider
you as a man of honor, let alone an investigator anywhere near
deserving the reputation of someone who tries to find the Truth. Any
other unsubstantiated claims against my methods, intent, or
investigative abilities will be grounds for my accumalating evidence
for libel and slander actions against you or any other legally allowed
actions that I can take against you. And there are plenty, and I will.
In conclusion, I better not EVER hear of you trash
talking me again after your pitiful display and being duped by Vallee,
who has proven himself to be his own Messenger Of Deception. As far as
I can see, you're just a hot bag of wind, Orsen Welles look-alike
poser,who makes the bogus claim of "Answering Questions, questioning
anwers!" which you sure didn't do in the matter of Vallee's fraudulent
article before you referred to it as "good research" and subsequently
attacked my character. And just so this isn't an "unsubstantiated
claim", readers can link to this: http://www.xxedgexx.com/paranet
where they can see you and your proclamation for themselves!
You may respond to my challenge care of the
True.X-File.News news service. And I am expecting a prompt response of
your acceptence or denial of this challenge. If you accept, I'm giving
you 30 days to get back to me with the results of who you could or
could not get to appear on your program. At that point a scheduling
arrangement will be made.
Sincerely, and with All Due Intentions Enforce,
Special Civilian Investigator Marshall Barnes.
This ends the official statement from Mr. Barnes. I feel
that it is now very clear who is truly *serious* about this matter. It
will now be up to Mr. Corbin to show if he can get these men to comply
or will be left with only questioning Mr. Barnes. Of course, Corbin
could always ignore this challenge, which will speak volumnes about
the nature of *his* character and resolve in getting to the bottom of
this matter once and for all.
The ball's in your court now, Mr. Corbin. Actually, I do
believe that it has hit you full in the face. Need a hanky? ;-)
Jack Husdon, publisher True.X-File.News
by Jacques F. Vallee
12-10-97
From: 'Jack Hudson'
Subject: Re: Vallee Hoaxed Corbin, UFO Sweden & Sightings
To Whomever:
Director
ParaNet Information Service, Inc.
303-863-0484 (Voice and FAX)