Conspiracy I: The Philadelphia Experiments

There are several problems with my opponent's rebuttal... let's begin with the simplest one: >> "Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption." This is the essential crux of the issue with Mr. Allende's testimony. Or should I say Mr. Allen's - it's hard to tell when someone takes a fake name and writes as poorly and rambling-ly as he does... There are several reasons to not believe the testimony of Allende/Allen: 1) His testimony directly contradicts that of the captains of the Eldridge and the Furuseth. [1] 2) His testimony is incompatible with what we know of the science that would be involved in making something invisible. [2] 3) His testimony directly contradicts the microfilm recordings from the Eldridge. [1] 4) His testimony directly contradicts the testimony of crew members of the Eldridge. [4] 5) He was known for sending bizarre claims to family members on meaningless occasions. [3] [1] http://www.history.navy.mil... [2] http://www.geocities.com... [3] http://skeptoid.com... [4] http://www.crystalinks.com... ************************************************************** - On Al Bielek, Duncan (Ed) Cameron, Larry James, Stewart Swerdlow, and Preston Nichols... This page (http://www.bielek-debunked.com...) provides evidence that Cameron never existed and was in fact made up (an alias) by Bielek. "Larry James" - a pseudonym - claims to want to transfer his soul to another body, just as he claims was done with Cameron's soul... which proves "Larry" is lying as well. Some facts: 1) Al Bielek (or Ed or Duncan Cameron) never served in the navy [1]. 2) Bielek only developed a "passionate interest" in the Philadelphia Experiments in 1988 - after the movie came out [1]. 3) Bielek claims his involvement in the Philadelphia was "blanked out" before 1988 - when the movie came out [1]. 4) Bielek falsified information about "Dr. Kurtenauer" and probably did so about Nicholas Tesla [2]. 5) Nichols' claims of time travel present continuity problems with the rest of Bielek's story [3]. 6) Swerdlow claims to have been aboard the Eldridge as the SS officer Johannes Von Gruber - never happened [4]. 7) Swerdlow's version of time travel and invisibility is incompatible with scientific knowledge and Allendle's testimony [2]. [1] http://www.bielek-debunked.com... [2] http://www.bielek-debunked.com... [3] http://www.bielek-debunked.com... [4] http://groups.google.com... ************************************************************** As you, the reader can see, there is ample evidence that this small collection of people is simply a group of liars seeking media attention. The documented history of reputable witnesses and the official Naval records of the Eldridge contradict these "witnesses." If my opponent is operating under the umbrella of direct evidence, he must accept that the testimony of these characters is not believable. The testimony of the captains of the vessels involved and the crew of the Eldridge, however, IS. Please also note that my opponent has not provided any sort of reconciliation between the following points from Round 1 and the version of the story espoused by his "witnesses" : 1) The logs from the Eldridge during this time period are available on microfilm NRS-1978-26 and do not confirm the above story [1]. 2) The ship was not in Philadelphia at the alleged time of the incident [1]. 3) The ship never made port in Philadelphia in 1943 [1]. 4) Lieutenant Junior Grade William S. Dodge, master of the Andrew Furuseth denies he or his crew saw anything unusual in Norfolk [1]. 5) The Eldridge and the Furuseth were never in Norfolk at the same time [1]. 6) "Bill Van Allen, 84, who was executive officer and then captain of the Eldridge in 1943 and 1944, said he never saw any sign of experiments aboard the ship" [2]. NEGATED.