- Jacques Vallee Said To Have
and UFO Community With His
"Anatomy Of A Hoax: The Philadelphia Experiment"
- From True X-File News <firstname.lastname@example.org
"If The 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 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.sightings.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 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 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
- "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 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 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/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 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 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
- "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 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 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 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
- 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 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" 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 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 "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.
To: "Michael F. Corbin" <email@example.com
- Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 21:25:02 -0700
- From: 'Jack Hudson' <firstname.lastname@example.org
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Vallee Hoaxed Corbin, UFO Sweden & Sightings
- To: Mr. Michael Corbin, Director ParaNet Information
- 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
- No Mike, you're obviously the rank amatuer 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 profesionalism
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 casuality,
Mike. You're evidence that there were people decieved 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 nwittingly 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 wanna-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
- 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 incrimminating 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 publically 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 disproven, 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.
- Finally, if anyone on this list knows how to contact
Mr. Barnes, I would appreciate the information.
- Hey, knowing what little that I know of Barnes now, I'd
- going to come looking for you!
- More to follow...
- More b.s. I'm sure. I'll be sure to wear my thigh high
- fishing boots next time.
- Michael Corbin
- ParaNet Information Service, Inc.
- 303-863-0484 (Voice and FAX)
- Jack Hudson, Publisher True.X-File.News
Marshall Barnes Responds To Michael Corbin
- 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
<firstname.lastname@example.org charging True.X-File.News and Marshall Barnes,
an investigator we had written a story about concerning his investigation
into the nature of an article written by Dr. Jacques F. Vallee entitled
Anatomy Of A Hoax, with making "radical claims", "outrageous
allegations", "without sufficient information", and nearly
came close to libeling investigator Barnes by calling him a "rank
amateur sleuth with an axe to grind". In reality it is Corbin who
made the wild allegations without sufficient evidence because he had been
supplied with our story which contained information that Barnes had painstakingly
assembled into an electronic package with links to evidence that proved
that the Anatomy article was a fraud due to the false testimony of its
one and only witness, Edward Dudgeon, upon whose testimony the article's
main thesis is based. This evidence was compelling enough so that when
Jeff Rense of Sightings On The Radio saw it, he placed the entire article
as a rebuttal to the portion of the Vallee article that he had previously
featured at his web site at http://www.sightings.com/ufo/philahoax.htm
Also, someone has since sent a html sensitive copy of this web page to
the UFO Updates mailing list so that members can click on the extensive
evidence that Barnes supplied and see for themselves that Mr. Dudgeon's
testimony was fraudulent, simultaneously showing Mr. Corbin's accusations
and insults to be completely baseless and without merit.
- 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 consistantly fallen
- 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 charater 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 anaylsis
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
- 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
- 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 recieving 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 labled 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 decieved 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
wil be able to confirm to your listening audience.
- If you no longer have a radio program,
I suggest that you attempt to make arragements 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 accumalating
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
- 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, Orsen Welles look-alike
poser,who makes the bogus claim of "Answering Questions, questioning
anwers!" 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 acceptence 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
- Special Civilian Investigator Marshall
- 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 volumnes 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
- NEXT TIME: MORE INFORMATION ON THE INVESTIGATION
AGAINST BERNHARD M. HAISCH OF THE JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION.