UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 6

Vallee Hoaxed Corbin, UFO Sweden & 'Sightings'

From: "true.x-file. news" <true.x-file.news@n2news.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 14:39:53 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 21:33:46 -0400
Subject: Vallee Hoaxed Corbin, UFO Sweden & 'Sightings'


TRUE.X-FILE.NEWS An Internet News Service

"If The Truth Is Out There...We'll Find It!" For Immediate
Release:

Jacques Vallee Hoaxed Science & Ufo Community With His
"Anatomy"! Ufo Sweden, Paranet'S Michael Corbin, Among Those
Taken In By The Scam! Jeff Rense Responds By Posting Rebuttal To
Vallee's Hoax At "Sightings" Site!

Dateline San Francisco, 6/6/98: 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 had appeared at a web
page for the radio show "Sightings" hosted by Jeff Rense,whom
some say is more credible than Art Bell. He lived up to that
image of credibility by posting the original version of this
report as a rebuttal. You can find it, and the rebuttal, at
http://www.sightings.com/ufo/philahoax.htm because the problem
is that the Jacques Vallee article the rebuttal refers to, has
now been conclusively proven to be a fraud and is under
investigation.

Dr. Jacques F. Vallee, scientist and world reknowned 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 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 claiming he was there and the
event never happened. The paper was 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 proves
Vallee's witness sure 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's here that my case against
Vallee begins, using his own stated standard for truth. You will
notice that he follows that by saying that he has interviewed a
man who was on the scene "the night" that the ship disappeared
and he can explain it in minute detail. By going to
http://www.access.digex.net/~patin/philaj.html a site where one
of those who has been fooled by the fraud has erected a
condensed version of the article, you can read how this
so-called witness, Edward Dudgeon, meets Vallee. First at the
5th paragraph under the title of What Actually Happened in
Philadelphia, you will read how Vallee states that he saw
Dudgeon's "identification and his disharge papers". In fact, a
discharge certificate is reproduced in the actual journal
version of the article with Dudgeon's name on it. However, there
is no indentication that Vallee saw anything that proved that
Dudgeon was on the ship that he will claim to be on. We don't
even know what kind of 'identification' papers Vallee saw. Birth
certificate? Social Security card? This is important because it
establishes the uncertainty that Edward Dudgeon is even Edward
Dudgeon! When you see the following evidence of his untruthful
testimony, you'll understand why this issue of identity is
critical.

"If you continue reading about Dudgeon you will see at the 12th
paragraph below the title heading, at the beginning of the 5th
line of the paragraph, Dudgeon says "Your book Revelations was
wrong about making the ship invisible to radar: the Germans
hadn't deployed radar at the time..." The time period in
question is the summer of 1943. As you can see by clicking on
http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rpy/keilcana.htm and
http://www.cnd.net/~kais/navy/deutsch2.jpg the German navy had
radar on top of their ships before WWII. By clicking on
http://www.cnd.net/~kais/navy/raiders.htm and scrolling down to
the third and fourth pargraphs under the heading: 'The "pocket
battleship" Admiral Scheer', you can read how these same radar
systems were used to kill and sink allied shipping and crew. It
is obvious that Dudgeon's comment is entirely without merit,
especially when you consider that the Germans had radar on their
JU88 dive bombers which attacked and sank ships like the USS
Lansdale, and these were outfited 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
comes from the Department of the Navy. The Lansdale did sink.
See this daughter speak of her father who survived it at
http://wae.com/messages/msgs4275html )by blowing it out of the
water with torpedoe attacks. The same kind that the picture's
caption so plainly describes. Even German submarines had been
intended to get radar in 1941, had radar detectors in 1943 and
got radar in 1944. Around this time of Memorial Day it is a
special affront to the sacrfice of those who gave their lives to
keep the world free from Nazism in the face of weapons guided by
the same radar systems that Dudgeon claims that the Germans had
not deployed. And Vallee presents this liar as though he had
checked him out."

If that isn't stunning enough to see that historic evidence that
directly contradicts Vallee's "witness", it gets worse. Barnes
showed us that by going back to
http://www.access.digex.net/~patin/philaj.html and scrolling
down to the tenth paragraph below the heading, we see that
Dudgeon claims that he was on the "DE 50, U.S.S. Engstrom".
Remember, Vallee himself has said nothing about seeing any
confirmation of this and we have already seen direct evidence
that this man cannot be trusted. Now he will lie again four
paragraphs further where he claims that the Eldridge(the shipped
allegedly used for the Experiment) and his ship, the Engstrom,
and two other ships went out on shakedown together the first
week of July. Barnes points out that this is the lie that would
place Dudgeon as the so-called witness that nothing happened.
But, the official Navy records for the Eldridge show that the
ship wasn't 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 effectively rules Dudgeon out as a credible
witness and destroys the validity of Vallee's so-called
"research", and his paper's thesis, because the shakedown cruise
that the Eldridge supposedly had with the Engstrom didn't
happen. We don't even know if Dudgeon was on the Engstrom. We
don't even know if Dudgeon is really even 'Dudgeon'!"

For most people that would be enough to convince them, but
Barnes found more. Alot more, and remember, he didn't even
supply us with *everything*.

"As the paper with the ships dates suggests," he continues,
"there was indeed interest in invisibility by the US Navy. By
going back to Table 1 you will see the date of 1941-Dec. 7 where
Dunninger submits a ship invisibility idea to the Navy after
Pearl Harbor. Dunniger was a magician who claimed that he knew a
way to make a ship invisible by using the sun's rays. This idea
would become classified by the U.S. Navy and to this day has
never been revealed. If you go back to
http://www.access.digex.net/~patin/philaj.html and scroll down
to the 21st paragraph below the heading you will see Vallee ask
Dudgeon "What about the luminous phenomena he described?" This
question is in reference to the glow that was said to have
enveloped the ship before it became invisible.Dudgeon responds
by saying that the glow was really a coronal discharge phenomena
called "St. Elmo's Fire". Scroll down to the last paragragh
before it says End Of Quotation, and Dudgeon repeats the lie
about the shakedown cruise dates and then repeats his statement
about the St. Elmo's Fire. You'll notice that he makes no
mention in either place about a ship appearing to "be gone" due
to St. Elmo's Fire, however in the TV program, Mysterious Forces
Beyond, Dudgeon is asked on camera, by Jacques Vallee himself,
the same question about anything happening to the ships during
shakedown. Dudgeon's response is as follows, and I quote "Then
this ship off to the distance, when that 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
availble here now. However, in reference to Dudgeon's TV show
quote, I would like for you to compare it to this quote by the
original eyewitness to the experiment(whom I find has
credibility problems as well, but many others have made similar
statements concerning this incident)by going to
http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/tech1-2.htm and scrolling
down the 12th paragraph where it begins with "I watched the air
all around the ship...turn slightly, ever so slightly darker
than all the other air..." In that paragraph he ends by saying
"I watched as thereafter the DE 173 became rapidly invisible to
human eyes. And yet, the precise shape of the keel and the
underhull of that...ship REMAINED impressed into the ocean water
as it and my own ship sped along somewhat side by side and close
to inboards..." The similarities between the two accounts, I
feel, are obvious and whether or not the Dudgeon account is
true, the purpose was to give a rational explanation for the
later witness account. In other words, to Mr. and Mrs. Skeptic
at home it would be a simple matter of 'Oh, Marge. See? It
wasn't a top secret military project that made the ship
invisible. It was only St. Elmo's Fire, a common incident of
nature!'"

"Notice, however, nothing of the testimony that Dudgeon gave on
St. Elmo's Fire making a ship invisible is in the JSE account as
we have already seen. Why leave it out? I now refer you to the
full account of the article, reproduced with the direct
permission of Jacques Vallee (an apparent violation of the
standard JSE policy of any article they publish being owned by
them and not reproducible elsewhere)given to one Micheal Corbin
at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7354/Hoax.txt where if you
scroll all the way to the bottom and then scroll up until you
see the word "Acknowledgments" standing 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 to surfaced submarines by putting special lights on
their wings in the daylight sky 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 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 (eleven from the op)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, was
removed. 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.



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com