by Jacques F. Vallee
Spring, 1994
from
EducateYourself Website
Editor’s Note
.
July 15, 2003. This is the reprint of
a piece published in 1994 by Jacques Vallee in the
Journal of Scientific Exploration. This ’Anatomy of a
Hoax’ however, has been thoroughly reviewed and shown to
be a hoax itself in an article appearing on the Internet
in December 2001 titled: Philadelphia Experiment
Debunkers Debunked. Vallee was reported to have been a
disinformation specialist linked with U.S. military
intelligence. U.S. Naval intelligence, especially, has
always been, and still is, hell-bent on trying to
convince the public that the Philadelphia Experiment
never happened, 60 years after the fact.
.
Since late
Spring of 2003, a new effort has been initiated over the
Internet to debunk
Al Bielek and his version of
The
Philadelphia Experiment. Two of three individuals who
are involved in this current debunking effort have
contacted me in hopes of convincing me of the merits of
their allegations and get me to publish their info (or
disinfo as the case may be).
.
I plan to
address their allegations in future articles. I’ve
always contended and continue to feel that Al Bielek has
tried his best to relay his information as accurately as
he knows it and without exaggeration. His detractors are
always Johnny-Come-Lately’s with a hidden agenda whose
words usually don’t stand up very long when under
rigorous scrutiny, as was the case with this disinformation effort by
Vallee. Following the Vallee
piece is a rebuttal from True X-File News, a response to
that rebuttal from Michael Corbin, a Vallee promoter,
and finally a response from Marshall Barnes to Michael
Corbin.
Ken Adachi |
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 electrician’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 commissioned 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 <true.x-file.news@n2news.com
"If The Truth Is Out There...We’ll Find It!"
For Immediate Release 5-30-98
SAN FRANCISCO - The title is
featured prominently at the center of their homepage located at
http//www.algonet.se/~ufo/english.html.
"The Philadelphia Experiment Fifty Years Later" it says.
It appears again at a web page for the radio show "Sightings"
hosted by Jeff Rense, whom some say is more credible than
Art Bell. You can find it at
http://www.rense.com/ufo/philahoax.htm
but the problem is that the article that it refers to, written
by Jacques Vallee, has now been conclusively proven to be
a fraud and is under investigation.
Dr. Jacques F. Vallee, scientist and world renown 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 discharge
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
identification 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
the
German navy had radar on top of their ships before WWII.
(below image)
By clicking on
http//www.cnd.net/~kais/navy/raiders.htm and
scrolling down to the third and fourth paragraphs 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/msgs4275.html)
by blowing it out of the water with torpedo 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 sacrifice 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
commissioned 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. A lot 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 paragraph 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 shake-down.
Dudgeon’s response is as follows,
and I quote "Then this ship off to the distance, when that
moisture 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 available 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 under hull 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 prosecutor (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 Michael 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" ending 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 "Withholding
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 military 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 military 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" Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 21:25:02 -0700
From: ’Jack Hudson’ Cc: updates@globalserve.net
Subject: Re: Vallee Hoaxed Corbin, UFO Sweden & Sightings
To: Mr. Michael Corbin, Director ParaNet Information Services,
Inc.:
Michael Corbin wrote:
To Whomever:
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
amateur 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 professionalism 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
casualty, Mike.
You’re evidence that there were
people deceived 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 unwittingly 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 want to-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 incriminating 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 publicly 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 disprove, 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
Director
ParaNet Information Service, Inc.
303-863-0484 (Voice and FAX)
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 During Mr.
Corbin’s diatribe against us and Mr. Barnes, he insinuated that
he would "investigate him further to determine where he is
coming from". In a reply to his message I intimated that Mr.
Barnes would probably come "looking for him". I was not wrong.
Choosing our service as the delivery medium for his response, I
now present Mr. Barnes’ official statement and reply to
the
baseless accusations of Michael Corbin:
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 consistently 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 character
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 analysis
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 receiving
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
labeled 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 deceived 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 will be able to confirm to your listening
audience.
If you no longer have a radio program, I suggest that you
attempt to make arrangements 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 accumulating
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, Orson Wells
look-alike poser, who makes the bogus claim of "Answering
Questions, questioning answers!" 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
acceptance 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 volumes 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
|