>From j9aq9@aol.com Tue Jul 28 16:29:02 1998
>Received: from J9Aq9@aol.com
> by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id HQWHa27848;
> Tue, 28 Jul 1998 19:28:08 -0400 (EDT)
>From:
>Message-ID: <2697b549.35be5e8a@aol.com>
>Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 19:28:08 EDT
>To: Phikent@aol.com, CELESTIALONE@prodigy.net, alandewalton@hotmail.com,
> Finchley@aol.com, WSTQ93A@prodigy.com, snoball@idt.net, bscott@nni.com,
> AnasaziUK@aol.com, pussycat@igalaxy.net, crt99@pacbell.net,
> dr.corrieri@span.ch, dcameron@innotts.co.uk, dfontana@mindspring.com,
> gwc@airmail.net, Gigawatt@blkbox.com, gregwisniewski@tescoeng.com,
> lammerh@bkfug.kfunigraz.ac.at, hervath@dialdata.com.br,
> gardenia@mars.superlink.net, UFOzone2000@webtv.net,
> jferris@mindspring.com, NFTK37A@prodigy.com, TAAK46B@prodigy.com,
> riverwind@prodigy.net, ZDNF48C@prodigy.com, melonbel@sister.com,
> GroomWatch@aol.com, wilfred1@home.com, TXLG37A@prodigy.com,
> narcotic@concentric.net
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Subject: Marshall Barnes--Proof on Philly/Montauk, etc.
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
>X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 72
>
>Hello ASP friends--
> I thought you would be interested in the following, as several month=
>s ago=0Athe ASP group was discussing Jacque Vallee's article Anatomy Of A=
> Hoax, which=0Apurports to debunk the Philadelphia Experiment. I and Loui=
>se Lowery, among=0Aothers, expressed some serious reservations as to the =
>credibility of Vallee=0Ahimself and the validity of any so-called debunki=
>ng he would be responsible=0Afor.
> Independent researcher/investigator Marshall Barnes, who has stated =
>he=0Afinds solid scientific and other evidentiary support for all of the=
>=0Afundamental allegations made in regard to the Montauk project and=0APh=
>iladelphia. Barnes is now publicly presenting his hard evidence on the=0A=
>Philadelphia Experiment at a NY conference on August 5. Barnes also shows=
>=0Apositive proof that the heart of Vallee's debunking article is serious=
>ly,=0Afatally flawed and that the article itself is ironically, a genuine=
> hoax!
> I reprint below the related material.
> Additionally, my new report on the current state of the Montauk Proj=
>ect=0Aand associated/related activities--including some almost humorous=
>=0Amisadventures from my most recent trip in June to the Montauk vicinity=
>=0A(Michelle Guerin knows about some of this re. an underground entrance!=
>)--will=0Asoon be available on the Konformist website at
link.
>
> I heard Barnes on Bell 1 1/2 years ago. First rate investigator (Barn=
>es
>not Bell). Totally independently of any of the Philly Ex/Montauk Project
>principals--he concluded that the science behind what's been claimed re
>these projects is completely solid and that indeed such activities as
>claimed have taken place, at the locations named.
> I've already told my opinion of Vallee's debunking article Anatomy O=
>f a
>Hoax.
>
> Vallee is a spook thru and thru--I'd put big money on it... if I had=
>
>any.
>
>John Quinn=A0
>
>****************************************************************=A0
>
>From: fantastic.events@england.com
>Subj: MARSHALL BARNES PRESENTS THE PROOF FOR THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT
>=A0
>
>=A0
>
>Fantastic Events is pleased to announce the first ever New York City
>appearance of Special Civilian Investigator Marshall Barnes - the only
>investigator to get evidence that PROVES that the Philadelphia
>Experiment was possible and that there has been a concerted effort to
>cover it up.
>
>=A0
>
>This 3 hour lecture presentation will be packed with court room quality
>evidence that includes video footage of documents, interviews,
>photographs, taped phone conversations, and experiments testing the
>statements of the mysterious Dr. Rinehart from the William Moore book,
>Philadelphia Experiment:Project Invisibility,that result in solid,
>opaque objects appearing to become invisible! ALL of the evidence
>against Jacques Vallee's fraudulent article, Anatomy Of A Hoax, will be
>presented and leave no one doubting that the famous UFO researcher was
>an active participant in the cover-up effort. ( see
>link)
>
>Names, dates, documents. All of this material is new and never presented
>by anyone else! It is all part of an ongoing investigation that
>threatens the actual individuals who have personally taken part in it!
>
>=A0
>
>True believers will be elated. Skeptics will be stunned. Marshall only
>presents documentation for his case and NO ANECDOTAL STORIES. NO
>UNBRIDALED SPECULATION. He will field all questions from *anyone* who
>asks. You have never seen the case for the Philadelphia Experiment until
>you've heard from the only man who has gone directly after the Office of
>Naval Research and may have triggered the massive destruction of naval
>documents from around the time frame of when this legendary event was
>planned, executed and spin-off research continued (see:
>
>He will present the documentation that creates the timetable that
>suggests this is what happened.
>
>=A0
>
>This will be a hard hitting, no-nonsense, by the numbers lecture that
>takes you all the way back to WWII and walks you through the only
>questions that matter:
>
>=A0
>
>1)Did the Navy want an invisible ship?
>
>2)Could they have figuered out a way to make one?
>
>3)Is there a physics that would accomplish such a goal?
>
>4)Did the technology exist to apply the physics? -
>
>=A0
>
>and toward the single answer that is so threatening, that two well known
>scientists engaged in a desperate act of fraud, disinformation and
>cover-up, risking their names, reputations and those of the organization
>to which they belong, benefitting only those in the intelligence and
>military community where they have contacts, because the answer to all
>four questions is YES!
>
>=A0
>
>"Marshall Barnes, on a quest, believes the Philadelphia Experiment
>occurred, and I like his line of research." - Art Bell, talk radio host
>
>=A0
>
>Marshall Barnes has done some very important research. I think that he
>is very close to understanding what happened that day." - Jean Claude
>Ba, Ph.D, physicist
>
>=A0
>
>"His experiment proved that it is possible to create the illusion of
>invisibility." - Patricia Bowskill, Fate magazine
>=A0
>
>"Marshall Barnes...is a dynamic, forceful speaker." - Ken Harsch,
>Universal Light Expo
>
>=A0
>
>"I have two interviews from the Art Bell show. One is with Marshall
>Barnes...superb." - Dan Woolman, In Search of web site
>
>=A0
>
>Don't Miss This Event!
>
>=A0
>
>Wed. August 5th, 7-10pm at the Source of Life Center, Room A, 22 West
>34th St., New York, N.Y. - next to the Empire State Building
>
>Admission is $12, $10 with student ID or UFO organization membership
>card, $8 with VFW or other U.S. veteran ID>>
>
>
>****************************************************************
> Below here I reprint the material by which Vallee's entire attempt t=
>o=0Abury serious inquiry into the Phildelphia Experiment is thoroughly an=
>d=0Aunarguably demolished.
>
>
>From--link
>
><
>
>
> Jacques Vallee Said To Have Hoaxed Science and UFO Community
>With His "Anatomy Of A Hoax: The Philadelphia Experiment"
>
> From True X-File News
>Truth Is Out There...We'll Find It!" For Immediate Release
>5-30-98
>
>
>SAN FRANCSCO - The title is featured prominently at the center
>of their homepage located at
>link. "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 link 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 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...
>
>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 link 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 link inactive - link to alternate site 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
>link inactive - link to alternate site the German navy had
>radar on top of their ships before WWII. By clicking on
>link inactive - link to alternate site
>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
>link inactive - link to alternate site 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 (link)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
>link inactive - link to alternate site 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
>link 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
>link inactive - link to alternate site 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
>link 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 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
>home page of inactive link 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."
>
>So 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.
>
>Email eotl@west.net Homepage UFOs>>
T
Email: branton777@yandex.com
