Talk:Philadelphia Experiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pennsylvania (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philadelphia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Neutrality[edit]

This article is written from a skeptics view point. It insists that the experiment doesn't exist, and proceeds to be written off of little evidence for the experiment and much more evidence against it. In fact, the so called "evidence" section seems more like a "disproof" section judging from its content. Now, you could call me a "believer" in this, but I read the article and it seems like it was written for the sole intent to disprove the existence of it. 173.75.216.173 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't CNN. It doesn't provide two sides of the story as if they have equal weight. 216.246.130.20 (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC) THERE YOU GO. THAT'S THE MUCH VAULTED "NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW" OF WIKI! Life is short, but the years are long! (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is written from a neutral point of view. It doesn't say, "The story is a hoax." It says, "The story is widely regarded as a hoax," with three citations from reliable sources. Are there reliable sources who say the story is not a hoax? If there are, add them. But I don't think there are. Sometimes, there just are not two sides to every argument. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Joegoodfriend uses false logic. If something is widely regarded as a hoax and is backed up by "reliable sources", then those that disagree are often discounted as unreliable. Personally, I am of the belief that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But, I would agree that the article is biased to the hoax POV. As in all things where government secrecy is involved, it is often difficult to dig up incontrovertible proof, that cannot be silenced by a government bent on protecting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.222.189 (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The story is a hoax, as referenced. If you have reliable sources that say otherwise please add them in. 199.46.198.230 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible source of the story[edit]

Possible source of the story- The ship was demagnetized at a U.S. Navy deguassing station in the Chesapeake Bay near Cape Charles Va. The purpose was to make it "invisible" to enemy mines designed to be triggered magnetically. It involved docking over a series of suspended heavy copper cables which, when electrified, induced a magnetic field in the ships hull. This field was then cancelled by simply reversing polarity. This little understood process later became the source of rumors that the boat had been made "invisible"! The Cape Charles facility was later demolished and today lies under water in the Chesapeake Bay. Local fisherman occasionally retrieve thick coils of pure copper cable from the site, although it was officially declared "off limits" by the United States Navy long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V.A. Hirshorn (talkcontribs) 17:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating - what we need are sources (see WP:RS) suggesting this as an explanation. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion of the USS Engstrom's degaussing and that being a possible source, are you sure the Eldridge was also degaussed? Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Such degaussing wouldn't have caused the physical effects claimed by supposed eyewitnesses to the event. In fact, if an alternating current is being used, a person aboard a steel-hulled ship while it is being degaussed might hear a hum and feel a vibration at the same frequency, but suffer no ill effects whatsoever — certainly not the "electronic fog" and teleportation described in the story. — QuicksilverT @ 20:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Commonly-accepted physics"[edit]

The article uses the phrase to imply cloaking isn't possible. This is patently false. It might take "exhaustive" research to find references but the physics behind stealth technology has been demonstrated using visible light. The objects hidden weren't as large as the stealth fighter or stealth bomber. Nevertheless, "commonly-accepted" physicists tend to believe what they observe. If memory serves here, the article was published I read was in Spectrum Magazine sometimes after 2001 and before 2011. And, was quite small. (Maybe 1/6th to 1/8th of a page). 71.211.232.159 (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I updated the text to state "that the alleged claims do not conform to known physical laws". This language is closer to the original source. If you have a source that states otherwise feel free to add it in. 199.46.198.230 (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Counter Illuminance[edit]

I believe that the whole Philadelphia Project story is confabulated from real war time research that would have made ships sitting on the horizon relative to another ship very difficult to see. Please see the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffused_lighting_camouflage. This research was abandoned because high resolution radar was developed within a short period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.19.179 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)