Jacques Vallee certainly stepped on some toes with "Messengers of
Deception," and the persons/groups associated with those toes never tire of
smearing him ...
"HawkEye" has even less credibility in my eyes than the nonsense he
promotes.
I refuse to be suckered into replying to disinformation agents in
addition to con men That path leads invariably to a perpetual quicksand,
opposing professional mindfuck artists, inexhaustible in output -- and very
well funded by "someone."
My criticism of the "Philadelphia Experiment" and "Montauk" was matter
of fact; I've referred readers to sources of information other than the
mirrors-reflecting-mirrors "sources" EXCLUSIVELY cited and defended by
promoters of "New Age" fictions.
Personally, I don't CARE what anyone else chooses to believe on this
topic; I just offered my informed (?) opinion. By contrast, the "hidden
agendas" being served --Cui bono?-- by those actively promoting BELIEF in
"New Age" fantasies (like "walk-ins," time-warp reincarnation, alien "secret
identities," and the like) are SERIOUS enough --to "someone"-- to make any
doubt or intelligent criticism a THREAT requiring relentless, vehement
counterattack.
Someone raises a reasonable doubt. Suddenly the Inquisition arrives.
Look at that picture and draw your own conclusions about who's the more
interested party -- and ask yourself also, WHY such an extreme degree of
interest? (Cui bono?)
This post exhibits some typical disinformation "sleight of hand" -- for
example:
"No mention was made in the printed article to the effect that St. Elmo's
Fire CAN <who says?> also result in INVISIBILITY -- something much more
significant from a defense or "covert operations" point of view than some
greenish glow, and which IF TRUE <sic> would indeed logically <sic> have a
direct relation to the Philadelphia Experiment technology itself." [Emphasis
and comments inserted in brackets mine.]
Like "If I had some baloney, I could have a baloney sandwich, if I had some
bread."
michiels wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> Would you please take a look at the assertions below. It was my understanding that
> a post about Jacques Vall�e did appear (in the last 3 months I think) proving that
> his last book(s) were in fact desinformation and misinformation done by him as a
> CIA plant/agent.
>
> You have forwarded to me all your works on the Montauk project at al., and I find
> it only fair to advise you on its attack as being a hoax.
Hi--
Here's what's up with Vallee's "research" into the Philly Experiment and
related issues.
John Quinn/NewsHawk� Inc.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Excerpt from:
PHOENIX UNDEAD--The Montauk Project and Camp Hero Today
� 1998 John Quinn
THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT, VALLEE, "DUDGEON",
MARSHALL BARNES AND THE DEBUNKER DEBUNKED
Jacques Vallee, a fairly well-known and "credible" UFO researcher, who I
discovered several years ago has had substantial and verifiable links to
intelligence/military agencies in the U.S. going back 30 or more years
(in other words he was a high-level spook and disinfo agent who was
recruited from France, and worked with J. Allen Hynek and other
spook/scientists for Air Force Intelligence and similar groups;
initially at the Battelle Institute near Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio),
published a report in 1994 which purported to totally debunk the
Philadelphia Experiment and show that it was a hoax.
The problem is, Vallee's own article itself was complete and utter
hogwash, utilizing as it's primary source one "Edward Dudgeon"; some
phony with absolutely no credibility who has been conclusively proved a
liar--and thus by extension Vallee has been so proved as well. The
person who busted these clowns is named Marshall Barnes, an independent
researcher who in addition has heavily and thoroughly investigated the
Phoenix Project from Philadelphia all the way through the Montauk
Project, and has found SOLID evidence to support many of the major
claims being made about Phoenix, as well as scientific data which prove
that many of the claims are quite feasible.
Vallee and Bernhard Haisch, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific
Exploration which published Vallee's article and has refused to disclaim
or otherwise back off it, have become the target of an ongoing private
investigation focusing on them having promoted research fraud. Proof
which shows Jacques Vallee's article to be an outright fraud has been
made public by Barnes, leaving no room for doubt that the world famous
UFO researcher was an active participant in an official coverup effort.
Barnes shows irrefutably that there was on the part of the Navy and
other government agencies: 1.) a strong agenda to make a ship both radar
and sight invisible; 2.) knowledge of the physics by which this can be
done; and 3.) possession of the technology by which this physics could
be applied in the field. �
Apparently these facts are so disturbing to the "powers that be" that
they have in desperation engaged or coerced two well known scientists
into perpetrating a bizarre act of deliberate scientific debauchery;
risking their names, reputations and those of any organizations they may
belong to.
The so-called Dudgeon reportedly told Vallee, "Your book Revelations was
wrong about making the ship invisible to radar: the Germans hadn't
deployed radar at the time..." Dudgeon is referring to the summer of
1943. Without any question whatsoever the German navy had radar on their
ships before WWII. There is information posted on a website at
http://www.cnd.net/ ~kais/ navy/ raiders.htm which provides hard factual
data regarding the Nazi's development of radar. By scrolling down to the
third and fourth paragraphs under the heading:The pocket battleship
Admiral Scheer, one can find information on how these same radar systems
were used to devastating and deadly effect against Allied ships and
crew. The so-called Dudgeon's comments on this point, as on so many
others, are utterly worthless drivel.
As for the entire issue about Dudgeon's "credentials" and papers which
supposedly support his contention that he was even in the Navy at the
Philadelphia Yard during this time--the "papers" he showed Vallee are
completely insignificant and prove nothing of the sort. In fact not
even Vallee has said anything about seeing any hard documentation/
confirmation of these critical elements of Dudgeon's story, and
Dudgeon, as we see, is untrustworthy at best. Vallee doesn't even
describe what kind of "identification" papers he saw. Who really knows
if this so-called Edward Dudgeon is even Edward Dudgeon! In light of
the following evidence of his blatantly untruthful testimony, this
issue of his real identity becomes especially significant.
One of the main points which Dudgeon (or whoever) and Vallee make which
they say gives the lie to claims about the Philadelphia Experiment has
to do with the dates of the shakedown cruise for a number of vessels.
Dudgeon claims that The Eldridge accompanied his ship, the DE 50, U.S.S.
Engstrom and two other ships on shakedown together during the first week
of July. Surprise! The Navy's own official records for the Eldridge show
that the ship wasn't even launched until July 25, didn't receive its
commissioned crew until August 27 and then didn't go on its shakedown
cruise until September. It was within the period of time between July 25
and August 27 that a skeleton crew could and would have been used in the
clandestine experiments, as they would not be listed as the official
commissioned crew and thus any tracing of them would be as pretty much
impossible. Barnes says, "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."
At this point Vallee's article and the "testimony" which make up the
bulk of it are shown clearly and unargueably to be the complete garbage
that they truly are.
Why then, and at whose direction, have editor Bernard Haisch and his
Journal of Scientific Exploration refused to issue a disclaimer
regarding this work of outrageous fraud and in fact continue to publish
it on their website and doubtless elsewhere also? Very good questions
but most likely also rhetorical ones. Undoubtedly relevant is the fact
that Vallee for one reason or another deemed it desirable his report
"reviewed" and obviously censored or "cleared" by one "Vice-Admiral
William D. Houser". Hmmm...
Very interesting as well is the fact that apparently a false connection
was made by Dudgeon between the "St. Elmo's Fire" phenomenon and the
witness descriptions of the visual phenomenon observed during the
Philadelphia Experiment; that is, that the phenomenon in fact does more
than just impart to a ship a greenish, glowing aura due to the coronal
discharge, but can also have the effect of rendering the ship relatively
invisible to sight, and presumably to radar as well.
However, this claim only came up in a summary of Vallee's "research"
into Dudgeon's claims and on a TV interview of Dudgeon by Vallee, and is
not mentioned in the article itself, which was reviewed by the
Vice-Admiral. St. Elmo's Fire was mentioned by Dudgeon only as a
disinformation ploy, to provide a false explanation for any bizarre
conditions noted by a number of eyewitnesses regarding the condition of
the USS Eldridge. No mention was made in the printed article to the
effect that St. Elmo's Fire can also result in invisibility--something
much more significant from a defense or "covert operations" point of
view than some greenish glow, and which if true would indeed logically
have a direct relation to the Philadelphia Experiment technology itself.
If this were really true then there WOULD be a scientifically valid way
to make a vessel or other object invisible--by merely replicating the
effects of St. Elmo's Fire! Thus the Vice-Admiral would have advised
Vallee to remove this material from the printed article, regardless of
the fact that Dudgeon's yarn about St. Elmo's Fire is false and was only
originally offered at all as way of explaining the other accounts which
attest to the ship becoming invisible.
