It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by duff beer dragon
Why is there always someone in PX-MP threads that suggests replicating the radar invisibility ? Haven't they ever read anything at all about the Projects ?
Originally posted by Forschung
BankTeller, nothing Bill Moore said, says, or will say has any credibility after his "outing" as you put it. Stick a fork in Bill, he is done.
We agree on Al. Besides Al, there was a Preston Nichols who claimed to be an antennea engineer at Montauk. He and his partner, forget his name, did a bunch of underground videos on Montauk in the early 1990s. They had lots of megatron, trinitron, radar antennea stuff. Preston said he was hypnotized into working nites at Montauk while unaware of it all in his day job. Seemingly homosexual and electric chairs were said to be employed and a guy would mount one of these chairs and put on the headress like something out of the movie Forbidden Planet. But there was absolutely no proof any of this ever happened from the Eldridge, to King Kong materializing on the Montauk grounds. What do you have?
Originally posted by Toelint
Hahahahaha! We're talking about 1943 Technology here, remember? *sheesh* The most noteworthy items to come out of WWII were Nylon, Diesel engines, Aerisol (sic) spray cans, and recording tape! (Oh, and the Ramjet.)
Originally posted by bank teller
Originally posted by Forschung
BankTeller, nothing Bill Moore said, says, or will say has any credibility after his "outing" as you put it. Stick a fork in Bill, he is done.
We agree on Al. Besides Al, there was a Preston Nichols who claimed to be an antennea engineer at Montauk. He and his partner, forget his name, did a bunch of underground videos on Montauk in the early 1990s. They had lots of megatron, trinitron, radar antennea stuff. Preston said he was hypnotized into working nites at Montauk while unaware of it all in his day job. Seemingly homosexual and electric chairs were said to be employed and a guy would mount one of these chairs and put on the headress like something out of the movie Forbidden Planet. But there was absolutely no proof any of this ever happened from the Eldridge, to King Kong materializing on the Montauk grounds. What do you have?
Yes, we agree on Al. For Preston, I can tell you this. He made a claim to have seen a file on Project Rainbow when he was once employed at AIL if my memory serves me correctly. Barnes went and called them up and confirmed that Nichols had indeed worked for them when he said he did. This fact, in and of itself, does not confirm that he saw a report on the PX; however, it goes a bit of a way to support some of his claims. The stuff he says on Montauk I don't want to comment on now because that will open us up into the whole M. scene which for me is irrelevant to the PX.
For Bill Moore, I believe that in the long run you will find that holding that prejudice against him will do yourself no good. I know with clarity that much.....I would be willing to say most, of what Moore states in his book is backed up by documentary evidence.
But, the focus is now tending to flow backwards into what WAS written years ago. What I am pointing out is that since Moore/Berlitz, the work of Marshall Barnes, myself and Gerold Schelm, have all advanced what is known about the background to the PX. To my knowledge there is NO document yet to surface that would be the ultimate smoking gun. I don't think this will ever happen. What has happened is an accumulation of many pieces of the puzzle, enough of which provides a clear outline to what happened.
regards.
Originally posted by bank teller
As I was referring to earlier, we find new links all the time, some of which are just new information on a scientist who had a certain level of clearance into types of research/development and who also knew certain key players and you can see a definite match to the puzzle. The scientist might even have published papers later in life that refer back to his work on the main topic of interest. Putting the puzzle pieces on the board is hard work and sometimes we get excited about someone only to find that they did not work in the area we really need to look at.
Moore referred to all kinds of scientists and if you check on their names you'll see that it all comes clean. I don't believe that Moore put garbage data in his book. Although I have my doubts on some of the parts of the Canadian story towards the end of the book, the other stuff especially about scientists, does check out.
As for the goverment documents being unreliable, it is true that it is physically possible for fakes to me made. I refuse to approach government documents with worry because I think it is unwarrented anxiety. The government usually has way too much on it's plate and has little time or inclincation to make up fake documents especially during a big war when they already know that the documents are to be impounded for a minimum of 50 years of secrecy and in some cases 100 years! So no, I don't get all worked up about the government producing false records and planting them with the knowledge that 50 years hence they will be dug up and released with the intention of throwing off researchers. If you are worried about more recent confabulations, like the supposed MJ12 documents, then sure, that is possible but again I refuse to believe that we have any case of that for the PX. I"ve seen the FOIA documents that Barnes dug up on Einstein and other scientists for that period and to my untrained eye they do not look like fakes or plants or disinformation. They are in the main clearly written and although they sometimes hide the complete information because of secrecy, even to those who it is written to, you can get a clear idea of what they are saying. Besides which, there are no clearly worded FOIA documents I've seen that spell out in plain language a command to or an instruction to complete work on such a project. It just would not be put in those plain words. If we assume for the moment that the attempt to make ships invulnerable to magnetic mines and to the growing radar threat was a very high level concern and very top secret, then communications concerning such things is done in very clipped and edited English. All that info was on a very compartmentalized and need to know basis and was never spoken about out in the open. Face to face is one thing but never in a memo, in my view.
regards.
Originally posted by bank teller
Very good post. You make an excellent case for that U-Boat. I must admit that I have heard of that story but have done no reserach or reading into it, so I'm not able to say much. However, it would not surprise me in the least if they planted disinformation about that particular subject because of it's very nature. Saying too much or anything at all about what sort of nuclear material or commenting on the level of German nuclear science would, I imagine, be kept under wraps. In the same way they would have kept Operation Paper Clip under wraps for as long as possible. Without me sounding like an apologist for the Yankees, I'm merely saying that I can understand why they would muddy the waters around certain historical events, especially in areas that they are paranoid.
This being said, I cannot be certain that your view that "...the US National Archives is a de facto re-classification system and a part of the US intelligence services. " is the complete truth. In some cases, as I have said, I suppose we can be sure that information is withdrawn, blacked out completely on FOIA doc's or else false info is supplied.
While I'm thinking about it, I noticed a few days ago on a Harvard U web site, that info regarding certain archived documents are to be embargoed for 80 years. You read correctly. Why that long is a bit of a surprise as we're talking about a university and not the CIA!
Your point that we need outside of Government notification of a document leaves itself open to it's own form of verification. In fact, we are left with the same sort of questions: how do we ascertain that someone has the real goods when they come forward with a document? For example, the world of Biblical Archeology is all aflame with sides accusing each other of certifying relics as authentic and other sides, including the Israeli Dept. of Antiquities saying that many are well crafted fakes. It's a similar problem when someone outside of government says that they have the lost pages of the US Eldridge's log book that purport to show evidence of the PX. How could we authenticate the document? Very difficult if not impossible.
But, you have made a good and valid point. The hunt for information for the PX is often not done through government documents but in the archives of the IEEE and universities.
That last sentence has given you more clues than you might currently appreicate. Good hunting!
Originally posted by bank teller
You tell me you're a reseacher and you ask that question?
OK, this is how you get the answer.
www.google.com
IEEE
first hit on the site
www.ieee.org...
Originally posted by bank teller
In closing for now, just to put your views on internet searches in a different light for others who are reading this, last week I was able to track down 3 very important patents and 2 very important profiles of scientists involved in RAD Lab work; all of which was integral to the PX. Think as foul and as long as you wish. I know what I have found and how I found it; all of it on the "Internet".
Originally posted by bank teller
I should probably not do this, but here is one clue and only one.
www.randf.com...
You tell me what you find.
regards.