Anatomy Of A Hoax:
The Philadelphia Experiment
50 Years Later
by Jacques F. Vallee
From Skye Turell
Note: What actually happened in the Philadelphia Experiment has been highly exaggerated, although it is still very interesting. Following is a quotation of a section of an article in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration", Volume 8, Number 1, Spring, 1994. Copyright 1994 Society for Scientific Exploration. "Articles may be photocopied for noncommercial usage such as research, teaching, distribution as classroom material, etc." Address: ERL 306, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4055.
What Actually Happened in Philadelphia
In an earlier assessment of the Philadelphia Experiment data, the author offered the tentative conclusion that the story was, in part, based on fact: the Navy may have been involved in technically-advanced, classified tests in the Fall of 1943 (Vallee, 1991). These developments could have been misunderstood or deliberately romanticized by people like Allende, just as today we find tests of advanced flying platforms at Nellis Air Force Base being misinterpreted by believers. Furthermore I hypothesized that the experiments had to do with a radar countermeasures test. Indeed a Raytheon advertisement published thirteen years ago suggested that the corresponding technology was now out in the open (Raytheon, 1980). This hypothesis, however, failed to explain a few of the facts that highlighted the story. In particular it did not account for the observed disappearance of the destroyer from the harbor, for the mysterious devices brought on board under extreme security precautions, or for the alleged disappearance of two sailors from a nearby tavern. I called out to any one of my readers who might have additional information. That is how I came to correspond, and later to meet face to face, with Mr. Edward Dudgeon.
"I am a sixty-seven year old retired executive. I was in the Navy from 1942 through 1945," began Mr. Dudgeon's letter (Dudgeon, 1992) explaining his purpose in contacting me (see Figure 3.) He confirmed that the idea of an actual, secret technical development was correct, but he said I was wrong about a radar test. The truth, as he patiently wrote to me, was simpler.
I was on a destroyer that was there at the same time as the Eldridge DE 173.... I can explain all of the strange happenings as we had the same secret equipment on our ship. We were also with two other DEs and the Eldridge on shakedown in Bermuda and return to Philadelphia.
My correspondent suggested a meeting, adding "I am not looking for any compensation for this or media exposure. I just want someone to know what I know before it is too late."
A few weeks later I met with Mr. Dudgeon, who produced his identification and his discharge papers from the U.S. Navy. Over the next two hours he gave me the details of his story and answered my questions.
"You must realize that in forty three, the Germans had been sinking our ships as fast as they came out of the harbors into the Atlantic, which they called "the Graveyard." I was just a kid then. In fact I falsified my birth certificate in order to join the Navy in 1942. I was only sixteen at the time, turning seventeen in December of 1942."
"What was your training?" I asked him.
"I studied electronics at Iowa State. The Navy sent me to electronics school after boot camp. I graduated with the title of "electrician's mate third class" in February of 43, and then I went aboard ship in June 1943."
"Can you give me the name of the vessel?"
"Oh yes, the DE 50, U.S.S. Engstrom. It was a diesel electric ship, as opposed to the DE 173, the Eldridge, which was steam electric. These ships were run by the electricians. Our ship was put in dry dock so they could install high-torque screws."
"Why the special equipment?"
"The new screws made a sound of a different pitch, which made it harder for the submarines to hear us. They also installed a new sonar for underwater detection, and a device we called a "hedgehog" which was mounted in front of the forward gun mount on the bow. It fired depth charges in banks of twenty-four to thirty in a pattern, and could cover 180 degrees as far as about a mile away. That was one of the secrets. Your book Revelations was wrong about making the ship invisible to radar: the Germans hadn't deployed radar at the time. We were trying to make our ships invisible to magnetic torpedoes, by de-Gaussing them. We had regular radar and also a "micro-radar" of lower frequency. They could detect submarines as soon as they raised their periscopes or came up for air. We could pick them up in the dark or in fog as far as one or two miles away. That's when the Germans began to lose their U-boats."
"How does this relate to the Eldridge?" I asked Mr. Dudgeon.
"The Eldridge and the Engstrom were in the harbor together," he answered. "In fact four ships were outfitted at the same time: the 48, 49, 50 and the Eldridge, in June and July of 1943. The Navy used to de-Gauss all the ships in dry dock, even the merchant ships, otherwise the vessels acted as bar magnets which attracted the magnetic torpedoes."
"What was the procedure for shakedown?"
"All four ships went to Bermuda, which as a relay for the convoys to North Africa. There were several other destroyers there. They would send us out to train us to convoy. We also had a base in the Azores. The destroyers would go halfway and return to their respective base. The shakedown was scheduled for up to eight weeks but we only took five weeks to become proficient. We were there from the first week of July to the first week of August."
"What was your exact assignment on board?"
"I was electrican's mate third class petty officer. Our job was to make the ship speed up, slow down or reverse according to the bridge signals. Eight months later I was promoted to to second class. Eventually we were sent to the Pacific. I served on that ship for a year and a half, from June 1943 to November 1944. Then I was sent to a special school at Camp Perry, Virginia."
"Whatever happened to the Eldridge?"
"We separated with her after the shakedown. The DE 48 and the Eldridge stayed in the Atlantic, based in Bermuda until early 1944, then they went to the Pacific theater too. The DE 49, which was our sister ship, and the DE 50 headed through Panama mid-September 1943 and were in the Pacific theater thereafter. There was nothing unusual about the Eldridge. When we went ashore we met with her crew members in 1944, we had parties, there was never any mention of anything unusual. Allende made up the whole thing."
"What about the luminous phenomena he described?"
"Those are typical of electric storms, which are very spectacular. St. Elmo's fire is quite common at sea. I remember coming back from Bermuda with a convoy and all the ships being engulfed in what looked like green fire. When it started to rain the green fire would disappear."
"Did you hear of Einstein being involved with Navy experiments at the time?"
"No. I believe that Einstein worked with the radar development group, but he wasn't involved in running actual tests. At least I never heard of it."
"How were the classified devices actually installed?"
"After the Navy commisioned the ship and we were ready to go to sea, the National Bureau of Standards brought a master compass in a box that looked like a foot locker and we made several runs a sea in different directions to calibrate the ship's compass against the master. That's the mysterious "box" that various reports have mentioned.
"Who was Allende? Did you ever meet him?" I asked, showing Mr. Dudgeon the various letters I had received from the man.
"I never did meet him. From his writings I don't think he was in the Navy. But he could well have been in Philadelphia at the time, serving in the merchant marine. He could also have been aboard a merchant ship we escorted back to the Philly-Norfolk area during a storm."
"What about the claim that generators were placed into the hold?"
"Aboard all diesel-electric and steam-electric destroyers there were two motors that turned a port or starboard screw. Each motor was run by a generator."
"What was the procedure when the Navy de-Gaussed a ship?"
"They sent the crew ashore and they wrapped the vessel in big cables, then they sent high voltages through these cables to scramble the ship's magnetic signature. This operation involved contract workers, and of course there were also merchant ships around, so civilian sailors could well have heard Navy personnel saying something like,"they're going to make us invisible," meaning undetectable by magnetic torpedoes, without actually saying it."
"What about the smell of ozone?"
"That's not unusual. When they were de-Gaussing you could smell the ozone that was created. You could smell it very strongly."
"What security precautions were taken?"
"Our skipper warned us not to talk about the radar, the new sonar, the hedgehog, and the special screws. But you know how it is, information will always leak out. Another classified device we had was the "foxer," which we immersed in the sea off the fantail and dragged half a mile to a mile behind the destroyer. It gave off signals resembling the sound of a merchant vessel's screw. This attracted the German subs which fired acoustic-seeking torpedoes at it, giving away their position and wasting ammunition."
"How long had all this secret equipment been available?"
"About six to eight months, as far as I can tell. By the time we sailed out, submarine warfare had turned in our favor along the East Coast."
"This doesn't tell us how the Eldridge disappeared into thin air, or what actually happened in the tavern in early August 1943."
"That's the simplest part of the whole story," Mr. Dudgeon replied. "I was in that bar that evening, we had two or three beers, and I was one of the two sailors who are said to have disappeared mysteriously. The other fellow was named Dave. I don't remember his last name, but he served on the DE 49. The fight started when some of the sailors bragged about the secret equipment and were told to keep their mouths shut. Two of us were minors. I told you I cheated on my enlistment papers. The waitresses scooted us out the back door as soon as trouble began and later denied knowing anything about us. We were leaving at two in the morning. The Eldridge had already left at 11 p.m. Someone looking at the harbor that night have noticed that the Eldridge wasn't there any more and it did appear in Norfolk. It was back in Philadelphia harbor the next morning, which seems like an impossible feat: if you look at the map you'll see that merchant ships would have taken two days to make the trip. They would have required pilots to go around the submarine nets, the mines and so on at the harbor entrances to the Atlantic. But the Navy used a special inland channel, the Chesapeake-Delaware Canal, that bypassed all that. We made the trip in about six hours."
"Why did the ships have to go to Norfolk?"
"Norfolk is where we loaded the explosives. Those docks you see on the aerial photographs are designed for ammunition. The Navy loaded ships twenty-four hours a day. They could load a destroyer in four hours or less. I know that's where the Eldridge went, and she wasn't invisible, because we passed her as she was on the way back from Virginia, in Chesapeake Bay."
"In other words, the process was: out of dry dock, down the canal, loading ammunition in Norfolk, back to Philadelphia, out to sea to set the compasses and test radar and sonar gear?"
"Exactly. The Eldridge never disappeared. All four ships went to Bermuda in July 43 and came back together in early August. During that time we were also caught in a storm that created a display of green fire accompanied by a smell of ozone. The glow abated when it started raining."


Jacques Vallee Said To Have Hoaxed Science
and UFO Community With His
"Anatomy Of A Hoax: The Philadelphia Experiment"
From True X-File News <
"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 . "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 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 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 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 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 and the German navy had radar on top of their ships before WWII. By clicking on 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 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 ( )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 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 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 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 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 at 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 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" <
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 21:25:02 -0700
From: 'Jack Hudson' <
Subject: Re: Vallee Hoaxed Corbin, UFO Sweden & Sightings
To: Mr. Michael Corbin, Director ParaNet Information Services, Inc.:
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 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 know,
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 article.
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 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 say he's
going to come looking for you!
More to follow...
More b.s. I'm sure. I'll be sure to wear my thigh high fly
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 6-8-98
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 < 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 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 back to.
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 radio show.
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 in.
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 I will.
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: 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 Enforce,
Special Civilian Investigator Marshall Barnes.
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

Email Homepage