Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Topic and Discussion Index for PHILADELPHIA/MONTAUK/ RAINBOW/ELDRIDGE EXPERIMENTS/PROJECT

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   
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?




posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   

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 ?



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.)

You think we couldn't replicate the Philly Experiment?? Puh-lease!!



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

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.)



My, my, my. I suggest you dig a bit deeper and see what sort of exotic machinery was developed during the war. The German 'wonder' machines were enough to give pause for thought. Oh, just in case you forgot, that same stone age 1943 era gave us

- the Atom bomb
- jet air craft
- guided missiles
- advances in radar/stealth
- computers
- cyclotrons

etc. The Diesel engine was patented in 1892. Nylon was invented in 1938, not '43. Aerosole spray was invented in 1926. Magnetic tape was invented in 1928. Nice try, but you're out of your depths.


Mod edit big quote violation

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Toelint, this is what happens when you quit school in the third grade. Do a little work, then talk.

You think we couldn't replicate the Philly Experiment?? Puh-lease!!



Mod edit big quote violation

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

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.


Bank Teller, I am not going to try to tell you what constitutes "proof" in this matter. I am an outside observer who has run into some of these guys regarding related matter and, unfortunately, have had to endure their lectures.

William Moore: I have more stories on this guy than you can shake a stick at. He is in the government's pocket sooooo deep that he might just as well go back to teaching school, if he has not done so already. I am not going to accept any evidence gleaned from this guy without independent confirmation.

I am still interested in what type of evidence you have. Is it interviews or public records or gov. records correlating statements? Give me a clue.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Hi. You're now not perpared to tell me what constitutes proof but you've been willing to say that no one has provided any. That's a bit of a contradiction. But, no matter: many people say these things. They don't like the sound of what someone says but yet they cannot provide a clear criteria for what would make them feel better. With us and our take on Bielek, we heard and read enough. It made us feel uncomfortable. So, we started to check his story and ran it through a very thorough process of verification. Almost nothing he has said can be confirmed. When pressed by Barnes on this all Bielek can say is that the proof has been removed. That's no longer acceptable especially in light of all the hanky-panky we can catch Bielek on. I'm just focussing on him for a minute because he's such a good example. People, over the years have just decided on "gut" reactions, that he either feels good to them or not. We decided to avoid our own discomfort and just check with official records; almost none of his claims hold up.

For Moore I can't stop or change your opinion and I respect how you feel. However, when I say that there is hard evidence for much of what is in his book, then you should remember that he put some of it right in the book. For example, the photocopies of pertinent documentation for Allende are there. A lot of that stuff can be found in archives in the USA without it being blocked. So, if you doubt the truth on those documents you can always spend time to verify for yourself.

Andrew Hoccheimer has found all kinds of documents over the years, some of which has been uploaded to his web site. Barnes showed new documentation in his self published "Rinehart Files". There is always new material being found and although it is slow coming into print, it does not mean that nothing is being done on the research front. It is very slow work as most of us do this in our spare time as a hobby. And finally, some of the new material is in the form of new information or insights into a key scientist who we can connect on the large puzzle. When we see what this new piece was up to, who he worked for, what his projects were, how in an interview he might say that he was transferred to a secret project that had radar countermeasures as their objectives......this is all pertinent and helps fill in the gaps to the whole story. It is a very complex puzzle but it's still coming into a sharper focus.

regards



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Bank Teller, you are being a little to defensive. I am not downplaying your research, I don't have a clue as to what it is. My name, Forschung, means Research. Documents are nice but documents from the US government can be false. Eyewitnesses are nice but ditto. When we are dealing with history, there is no absolute proof for almost anything unless we find hardware and even then the interpetation of that hardware can differ.

I have done research and do appreciate all the problems, delays, false leads, bad leads, government bad leads, bady eye witnesses, eye witnesses and witnesses which later become discridited like Moore and Allende, so I an very willing to hear what you have to say. Is it a preponderance of evidence argument, one source, one gov. document, all these things---what?



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   

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.


Bank Teller, If you want some faked government documents, just write the US National Archives and Records Adm. at College Park, MD. for the bill of lading for the captured German U-boat, U-234. This is the U-boat said to be carrying 56 kilos of uranium 235 as uranium oxide in lead encased steel drums. In the US National Archives cargo list, there is no mention of uranium and they flatly deny it's presence on that U-boat. But, if you write to the Washington Shipyard, (US Navy) where the cargo was off-loaded, and ask for a bill of lading, you get (for $5.00) a microfisch copy showing the same goods on board but with the 56 kilos of uranium oxide clearly present. The US National Archives lied and forged data.

I can't even begin to tell you the number of "no record" generated under FOIA for which, later, there was a file found. In fact, most responses are lies and the US National Archives is a de facto re-classification system and a part of the US intelligence services.

In order to honestly use government information, somebody on the outside must claim or state that such a thing/device/history actually happened and only then can government documents be trusted as verification.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
So your posting information - yes? And not relating a subject to be discussed here in your thread?

Dallas



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
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!



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   

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!


What does IEEE stand for?



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
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...



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   

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...


Bank Teller, I hate to break the news to you but your IEEE appears to be a simple trade association. If this is how you do your research, no wonder you won't share one bit of it with us--there is nothing new in a trade organization. Not only that, it is on-line. There is a word for research using the internet---it is called masterbation.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
You wrote: "Bank Teller, I hate to break the news to you but your IEEE appears to be a simple trade association. If this is how you do your research, no wonder you won't share one bit of it with us--there is nothing new in a trade organization. Not only that, it is on-line. There is a word for research using the internet---it is called masterbation."

If you think research on the net is such a thing, then fine. That's your perception. And no, I'm not going to tell you how I got info from the IEEE web site showing archival interviews with current and past members. 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".



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   

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".


OK, what? You have been posturing as someone who knows something, what did you find "last week"? One fact, one reference, Bank Teller. Prove to me you are not reheating Bill Moore and Al Bielek.

So far in this thread I was the one who provided facts and references and that was only to make a point about research, not about the topic at hand. This is your topic, walk the walk.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I should probably not do this, but here is one clue and only one.

www.randf.com...

You tell me what you find.

regards.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   

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.


Look, I am not interested in "clues" or hiding-go-seek. If you have a point, make it. If you shouldn't do this, maybe you shouldn't be discussing this at all.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Sorry, but the important information is buried in that web site. Spoon feeding I'm not doing. The rest is up to you and if you don't like my manner then ignore my posts.

Cheers.






top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join