From: "true.x-file. news" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp