Talk:Philadelphia Experiment/Archive 1

message: the 1984 movie is mentioned in the section titled 
Later publications of the story, but not in the section titled Audio Visual Media.
People using the table of contents will not find it quickly, especially since the 1984 movie is not a "publication" at all.
- comment applies article text as of Aug 2, 2006
:it should be linked at the top maybe? same name and all —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.162.48.37 (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the movie 

message: From the article:
:Researcher Jacques Vallee describes a supposedly documented experiment
Um, I think it should either be "a documented experiment" or "a supposed experiment". It can't be both, can it?
P.S. I live in Philly. I've noticed the tendency of my socks to disappear, while my coat hangers tend to multiply. Any connection? ;-) func(talk) 18:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course there's no connection.  Everyone knows that it's paper clips which transform into coat hangers.  Your socks are being confiscated by roving bands of Foot Ninja.  :-)  Anyway, if Vallee alleges that he personally has documents which support his claim, and announces as such, but does not produce them, then I think that would be a "supposedly documented experiment". - Scooter 06:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed or Documented? 

message: Has anybody been watching the ABC series Lost? I don't know about you but the more I read about the Philly experiment and the Montauk stuff the more it correlates with the plot of the show.
-- Specifically the Dharma Project and button operator Desmond... ?
: Agreed. While I was pondering the Montauk Project the other day it ocured to me that there could be parallels. I think the Third Policeman angle is the main one and I've grabbed the bok to read, but I do wonder about something like this being added into the mix - it'd work well (Emperor 00:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. Especially with the finale last night. I mean...hello? Yeah, it's pretty much intense. Violet sky? Teleportaion. "Henry" said that Micheal would not be able to find them again. Invisability? Yeah. It's very close. --Rroepke 06:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOST? 

message: While many things about Pynchon's novel are puzzling, and it certainly borrows heavily from paranormal speculation and conspiracy theory, the title of the book is explained pretty clearly in the text: the rainbow is the path followed by a projectile in free fall, such as a rocket after its motor cuts off (Pynchon describes it as a parabola, though for long distances it would be more accurately described as a section of an ellipse).  I'm not sure other explanations are necessary. --Matt McIrvin 13:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravity's Rainbow 

message: The Philadelphia Experiment is a mere exaggeration of Degaussing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degaussing
Degaussing did take place on this particular ship. It did make the ship invisible, but not to radar or to the eye, but to MAGNETIC MINES.
This, by the way, is the Navy's explanation as to how this conspiracy came to be. There should be mention of it in the page. 69.111.19.31 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, it's Hollywood mangling science via a filter of practical jokes and cheap fiction.  Interesting in it's own way. Hakluyt bean (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the "criticism" section? 

message: I was just reading through this out of interest and I've noticed more spelling mistakes, grammatical mistakes, and outright back and forth than I have time to fix.  This article really needs taking down and rewriting by one person objectively - the information is there, the structure isn't.  To describe 'back and forth' a touch more, it seems like there are people fighting over this being factual and this being a nutters conspiracy theory; to put it bluntly it should be neither and probably read more like a story ('it is said the ship went bye bye'), if anything, with facts clearly outlined as such ('this man said this') and bickering over 'allegedly' and 'unproved to be false' be kept to a minimum.  This is a story for all purposes until proven otherwise, this isn't the legal system.  And quickly to note my bias for the above comments; I personally think there is a bit of truth to all things like this and I wouldn’t put it past the navy to at least be interested in a project like that – though if it was that the ship simply sailed up a canal or that it did in fact disappear is beyond my knowledge and I don’t expect to find out.  -- eps 0204, 03/08/06 (UTC)
WRT to style it should probably be mentioned that nowhere in the summary paragraphs it says what the 'experiment' was about.  It can be inferred that it was tried to render a ship invisible, but it is not stated explicitly.  Eventhough this is consistent with the coherency of the theory outlined, it does not make a good article. --84.150.103.233 03:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible layout and style of writing 

message: I spotted an update on this  - the authors of Thin Air have now admitted that their work is fiction. This leaves to leave people like Al Bielek hanging as they claim to have tracked down and talked to people now revealed not to exist. The site linked to  has been picking apart the various related threads (tracking down crews of vessels, etc.) and the whole thing looks to be either made up or the product of fantasy prone individuals who seem to actually seem to believe what they are saying. I'll leave it to someone else to work out how to incorporate this information into the entry (and possibly creating the Al Bielek entry to outline what we know about him. (Emperor 15:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thin Air = fiction? 

message: Hi, I  attempting to write a research paper for college on this very controversial subject.  I read "The Philadelphia Experiment: Project Invisibility" by William L. Moore in consultation with Charles Berlitz.  Although this book is obviously more sided with the idea that this experiment really did occur, it also seems to have very specific information that would be difficult to fabricate.  My question is this: How accurate is this information and how reliable are the sources?  Is this something I can include as a resource for a paper or is it a bunch of made up junk?  I am very interested to learn more on the subject. Any help would be greatly appreciated.--67.128.92.10 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus is that the information is not reliable, and much of it has been made up.  Some of the people involved have been revealed to not have existed at all.  Do you know that the information that is difficult to fabricate actually has corroborating evidence outside of the book?  Coyoty 17:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I havn't read the book but take a look in "Lost science" by Gerry Vassilatos 
 which have some good info about the prehistory for the 
experiment. --130.225.29.254 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quote from www.bielek-debunked.com...
It really is a pain in the ass for somebody who is looking for a tiny peace of background information in the internet, to dig through the thousands of Bielek-infected web pages. If Bielek was placed as major part of a dis-information campaign driven by US authorities, I have to admit, that this goal was achieved almost completely. Bielek and the Philadelphia Experiment have become one in the minds of most of the interested people. After you have seen what an intense and thorough investigation into Al Bielek`s claims has left of his story, you might ask yourself "Well, if Al Bielek made up all this, then the Philadelphia Experiment never happened, right?"
Wrong, because there is enough left beside Al Bielek and what ever he did to the whole field of the Philadelphia Experiment. What can be found (and was found and verified already) are manipulated records of the US Navy, the statements of an scientist, who was partially involved in the planning stage of the Philadelphia Experiment, the complete technical and military history of the degaussing technology, which led to the Philadelphia Experiment and
at least one excellent documented scientific review of the technological background of the Philadelphia Experiment, which makes the Philadelphia Experiment a true and sound part of the scientific race between the Allied and the German scientists during WW II. So true and sound as the application of radar and the Manhattan Project were. 
taken from http://www.bielek-debunked.com/Statements.html
--69.148.116.209 21:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction or Non? 

message: Eldridge's launch date seems to be disputed: "Some researchers say she was launched on 27 Aug. 1943, while others say it was 25 July...According to the Greek records, the Eldridge was launched in June of 1943, not in July nor August. Her displacement was 1,240 ton standard and 1900 full load, a discrepancy of 660 tons"
:Those 2 links are broken. I'm not sure if a geocities page is 100% reliable. Is there a site from the greek navy itself? Meanwhile, this site lists the Eldridge as being launched in July 1943, in sequence with other ships of its class. Totnesmartin 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the greek navy site  which says the ship was launched in 1944. Just t. Totnesmartin 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here's the dockyard owners' site . Wow, the cover-up is everywhere! Totnesmartin 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eldridge launch date 

message: Rewrote the entire page due to some inaccuracies (such as Jessup's attribution of "Mr. B" and "Jemi") and a general mocking POV.  Sure, it's pure nonsense, but we still have to hold to NPOV.  Scooter 09:19, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: All the "Carl Allen" links in this page were linking to a Carl Allen who is a US jazz drummer born in 1961. Since Carl Meredith Allen (in this article) was involved in incidents taking place in 1957, he can't be the same guy. I'll just add a disambiguation note to the Carl Allen article, so people don't get confused. --AaronW 20:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate it; thank you. - Scooter 06:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Allen 

message: What made me read the article is because I'm a huge fan of Red Alert. Don't you think mirage tanks were also derived from this experiment. I mean the tanks become camoflauged by its ability to copy objects like trees with the use of light. This was mentioned in the allied campaign where the allied forces are instructed to protect Einstein's lab to the success of the Chronosphere project.
In response to the above: What any of us think does not make it factual.
To the Video Games section: The section states that the Chronosphere kills all organical material. This should be edited to something along the lines of "kills all passengers in an APC" (and possibly Chinook) as the drivers of those vehicles survive.
"The experiment led to two devices, based on its two variations." Three actually, the Phase Tank in Red Alert and the Stealth Tanks in Tiberium Dawn/Sun.
Does the Red Alert 2 article need to be that detailed? I should at least not include any spoilers.
MCV 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Video Games 

message: This is possibly related to this issue: Sorry that I dont have time to write anything up, but this news story suggests that at least invisibility (radar AND vision) may be possible.
Yahoo! News
Also here...
Baltimore Sun website
: Sorry, but this story has nothing to do with the supposed Philadelphia Experiment. The cloaking technique described in the above mentioned articles involves wrapping an object in a sheet of other materials that would guide light around it - which does not seem to be the thing described in the Philadelphia Experiment, right? 
: Just to summarize, This is a really incredible feat in terms of materials engineering, but there is no new physics behind it al all: fiber optic wires work exactly this way, just as any pair of glasses or any lens of any kind. 
: Paolo 21:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this says that "invisibility" would be very difficult to do, even today. In 1943 it would have been impossible. Totnesmartin 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, I think you'll find that this technology employs materials either structured on a nanoscopic level (in similar principle to fibre optics) or by using materials with negative refractive indexes. This has nothing at all to do with warping space-time in funky ways with magnets. Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.79.169 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New experiments enable 'cloaking' devices 

message: This article is messy in many ways, but the worst section is the first. It describes the standard story relating to the experiment, but is unclear about what is real or not. As far as I can tell from the article as a whole, none of this story is considered true by the Navy, or any other mainstream source. The section should read something along the lines of: "Most accounts of the experiment claim that..." It would be nice if those accounts could be referenced. Later sections could explain objections to this story (eg. scientific problems, ship's records, crew testimony, etc.). Finally, the "In Popular Culture" section. If there are no valid objections, I will go ahead and change the first section in a few days. Makerowner 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of first section 

message: The following passage was uncited for two months.  I removed it.
:::Present day conspiracy proponents propose that the generators rigged to the ship may not have been designed to warp space/time. Instead they may have been deployed to heat up the air and water around the ship, creating an artificial mirage, thereby rendering the ship “invisible” to the human eye. This would still leave visible the ship's wake, in addition to the greenish colored fog described in some accounts.
Phiwum 12:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed passage without citation. 

message: "Albert Einstein never fully developed his Unified Field Theory. The Unified Field Theory, now called M-Theory has only recently come forth from the scientific community. Incidentally, M-Theory resolves the four energy forces (The Strong Nuclear Force or Strong Interaction and Weak Nuclear force or Weak Interaction, Gravity and Electromagnetism) through the incorporation of 11 spacial dimensions and multiple universes. M-Theory, quantum mechanics and relativity all allow for many of the things the Philadelphia Experiment are thought to possibly be. While perhaps extremely unlikely, nothing attributed to the Philadelphia Experiment is outlawed by our most current understanding of the laws of physics."
This is total nonsense. M-theory is not "the unified field theory" by any means. It does not "resolve the four energy forces..." in any physically meaningful way - aside from the fact that "energy forces" sounds... absurd. This should be removed. 
My god, this article. Can someone with proper dopamine levels fix this page? Myrkkyhammas 08:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once something has established notability, it does not lose that notability later. It does not degrade over time. It's total nonsense, but notably entertaining nonsense, so it can't be deleted. • Lawrence Cohen 13:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair point.  Where would American history be without the parts that are made up...  But seriously, I think the article should stay; it's a kind of public service.  I like the first paragraph atm eg "the story is widely regarded as a hoax".  That's fairly clear.  Hakluyt bean (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Nonsense 

message: See World Mystery  The World Mystery page is either taken from a previous version of this article, or this article is taken from them.  From what I've seen in the article history it is more likely the former.  Scottanon 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copywrite issues 

message: Ya think??
Where to begin..... articles such as this biased myopic rant actually does more to fuel the lunatic fringe than anything else. If one is to write an encyclopedic article one does not use phrases as "widely regarded as a hoax," one also doesn't keep hammering home how the story is basically BS, and back it up with false information, which anyone with rudimentary knowledge of physics can prove as false. (not that I'm saying that Fallout11 and  MASchwab  aren't versed in the study of course) 
It's pretty much a given that Al Bielek is a disinformationist  ether a compensated one or just a run of the mill nut-job that Coast to Coast AM is so famous for spotlighting. Further; there has been a significant body of work that claims that the stories of fusing humans to decks and Time Warps are pretty much invention of  the ONR.  What many scientist and historians believe is that Project Rainbow, was about RADAR jamming, and was successful; but given the current events, and the treaties that the United States had with its Allies that stipulated that we share major technological discoveries; there was no way in hell they would share the fact that yes we can fit our ships and perhaps soon our Aircraft with a device that would make them Invisible to that generations RADAR especially with our pals the Russians. The propaganda or absurdities that the ONR put forward  worked far beyond even the grandest desires of The U.S. government, it's like an old ex FBI agent once told me, scratch a Tale tale and you will nine times out of ten find a Government cover up.  Or ...UFO's = Stealth Aircraft, Roswell=Spying on Russia, Project Rainbow= RADAR jamming, Camp Hero = LSD/Biological experiments on transient citizens.
Martinj63 23:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Neutrality of The Article is disputed 

message: Slightly lacking in that fundamental aspect all good articles include... LEAD, anyone? Seegoon 03:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um... 

message: S. Berliner, III on his website http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/dudgeon.html wrot:
I really should warn those with a serious interest in the Dudgeon automobile that there are many links out there to one Edward Dudgeon, who was in the U. S. Navy from 1942 through 1945, and who testified about the alleged disappearance of the destroyer USS Eldridge, DE 173, from Philadelphia harbor, due to mysterious devices brought on board under extreme security precautions, and the alleged disappearance of two sailors from a nearby tavern!  New reference link (23 Oct 00).  Oh yeah!  Herr Gauss would turn over in his grave!
What do y'all think?
Vampromero (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  witness?