Talk:Philadelphia Experiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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. (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. (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 (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. (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there is a sense that supporters of the theory are foolish in this article. Someone coming here to find information on the supposed event will be confronted by a damning tone. Putting quotation marks around the word researchers when referring to the proponents of the theory shows naked disdain. Let the reader see how ridiculous the claim is based on the strong evidence against it, not by the author's self-assured brashness. People look to Wikipedia as a definitive and neutral source, and the tone of this article has a very personal and vindictive feel to it.

Furthermore, the lack of proper citation allows the author(s) to include whatever foolishness they want in the supposed event. Including uncited references to Nazis and UFOs will unfairly push the reader to believe to believe proponents are not only incorrect, but looney. In writing the articles, we should constrain ourselves to referencing authoritative sources. If that cannot be done, that part of the article should not be written.

I am not a supporter of the seemingly supernatural claims in this supposed event. I am a person who came here to find out more about it and found the article improperly cited in general and sometimes condescending in tone.2602:306:3461:ECC0:8893:76BB:3EAF:4BEB (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Putting quotation marks around the word researchers" - The relevant sentence start with "According to some accounts, unspecified "researchers" thought".
This means that nobody knows who those "researchers" are or if they even exist. Those people are nothing but a rumor. Thus, the quotation marks are entirely justified. Obviously, your idea of "neutral" is not the same as Wikipedia's idea of "neutral". There are people who know how to evaluate extraordinary claims, and one of the questions they have to ask is "how reliable are the sources". You don't seem to be interested in that question. That is your problem, not the article's. There is nothing wrong with the "tone". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2016 (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 This research was abandoned because high resolution radar was developed within a short period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like original research, but if you can find a reliable source to support your claim you're more than welcome to add it. SadBlueRobot (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Citation needed" & Reliable sources.[edit]

I've removed the claims that much of the history needs reliable sources and citations, as by the definition of the story reliable sources don't really exist - which is why it states at the top of the section "Note: Several different and sometimes contradictory versions of the alleged experiment have circulated over the years. The following synopsis recounts key story points common to most accounts" - which has a source attached to it.

I wouldn't be up in arms over reversion, but I'd like to know the reasoning behind it if so, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)