textfiles/ufo/hoax.txt

There has been some recent discussion on ParaNet regarding the Philadelphia
Experiment and the Montauk Project.  I am convinced that this whole thing is a
hoax based upon some very good research by Jacques Vallee and others. However,
despite the research showing that it is a hoax, the story continues to be
discussed as if it were all true.  Jacques Vallee has provided this article to
ParaNet for electronic distribution only via the computer networks, including
Odyssey Network and Fidonet UFO.

          ANATOMY OF A HOAX:

 The Philadelphia Experiment Fifty Years Later



 c  Copyright 1993, 1994 by Jacques F. Vallee
 1550 California Street, No.6L
       San Francisco, CA.94109

Note: This article was first printed in the Journal of Scientific
Exploration, Vol.8 no.1 (1994) pp.47-71.
Distributed  on Internet with author's permission.  Abstracts  of
all   JSE   articles  can  now  be  accessed  on  the   net   at:
http://valley.interact.nl/av/KIOSK/SSE/JSE_home.html


                     Abstract



The  "Philadelphia Experiment" concerns the allegedly  paranormal
disappearance  of  a  Navy  destroyer  from  the  docks  of   the
Philadelphia  Navy yard in the late Summer of 1943,  followed  by
disclosures  of  official contact with  extraterrestrial  powers.
Claims made by purported witnesses of this supposedly secret Navy
test directed by Albert Einstein have been repeatedly found to be
fraudulent. The author has now interviewed a man who served on  a
companion  ship to the destroyer in question, and who was on  the
scene  the night of its supposed disappearance, which he is  able
to  explain in minute detail. Yet the features of the  story  are
such  that it survives in the UFO literature and that it  is  now
being  revived  under  a  novel form for the  benefit  of  a  new
generation  of  readers.  Using this incident as  a  model  of  a
successful hoax, the present article extracts thirteen parameters
that  have been instrumental in its remarkable survival over  the
last fifty years; it compares the features of this fabrication to
other questionable episodes of UFO lore; finally, it attempts  to
draw  up  a  list  of  suitable  measures  for  their  detection,
challenge and ultimate exposure.




     The Prevalence of Hoaxes


  One  of the remarkable features of the study of the  paranormal
is the permanence and pernicious influence of hoaxes. Not only do
spurious  stories  arise, as they would in any other  field,  but
they  are  eagerly  seized upon with  little  effort  at  initial
verification,  even by people who have an established  reputation
as   objective  researchers.  Frank  criticism  of  the   process
inevitably arises, but it is commonly mistaken for an attack upon
the  integrity or the intelligence of the advocates of  the  case
who naturally feel defensive and harden their position. Those who
continue  to question the "evidence" tend to be assimilated  with
skeptics and their objections are often misrepresented.
  The  media  contribute  to  giving  such  stories  an  aura  of
respectability,  to  such  an  extent that  tall  tales  come  to
represent the only "knowledge" of the paranormal the public  will
eventually cite in everyday conversation.
  Even  more  remarkable  is the fact that some  hoaxes  tend  to
acquire  a  life of their own, and continue to be  invested  with
believability  among the public even when  overwhelming  negative
data  eventually  create unanimous  agreement  among  specialists
about  their  lack  of  substance. This makes  the  work  of  the
researcher vastly complicated, not only because the field becomes
heavily  tainted  by  the unreliability  of  these  stories,  but
because one has to spend an inordinate amount of time  explaining
the  situation to outsiders and dispelling prior  misconceptions.
From  a  sociological point of view, however,  hoaxes  are  quite
interesting.  They provide rich insights into the  preconceptions
of  both believers and skeptics. They illuminate the  motivations
of the authors of the plot and the eagerness of the spectators.
  For  any hoax to succeed it has to be believable and  relevant.
Those  that  endure,  resisting  even  the  absolute  proof,  the
definitive  exposure  of  the culprits  and  their  methods,  are
endowed with additional qualities. They resonate with deep-seated
imagery  in the minds of the masses and of the  educated  public.
They  never  fail to generate high ratings on  prime  time.  They
touch  all  of  us, whether or not we like  to  admit  it.  Their
victims are as likely to be found among the highly educated, even
the scientifically trained, as they are among the masses. In  the
words of Norman Mailer, "if lying is an art, then fine lying is a
fine art." (Mailer, 1991)
  Proven or suspected hoaxes abound in contemporary ufology.  The
saga  of  UMMO in Spain provides an example of a story  which  is
simply  too good and whose implications appear too  profound  for
believers to be swayed by rational arguments. Even absolute proof
of trickery can always be superseded with the notion that a truly
superior alien civilization might well plant fake photographs  or
false  prophecies in order to test the faith of its followers  on
earth,  an  argument actually volunteered by  the  self-described
Aliens   themselves  in  some  UMMO  documents  (Vallee,   1991).
Sociologists have long observed that exposure, in such cases, may
even  serve to strengthen the core of a belief system, no  matter
how  outrageous, although it does tend to scatter away the  outer
layer of sympathizers (Festinger, 1956).
  In  this regard, paranormal hoaxes are no different than  their
religious or political counterparts. Exposure of the Protocols of
the  Sages of Sion, a fabrication that began as a  fake  document
concocted  by  the  dreaded  Russian  Okhrana  in  1905  and  was
successfully  picked  up and reframed against the  Jews  by  Nazi
propaganda in the Thirties with terrifying efficacy (Cohn, 1967),
has not permanently dulled its impact. Indeed the Protocols  have
now reappeared as "channeled" material from space entities,  thus
endowed  with  that glow of supreme authority that many  New  Age
believers  find  harder  to question  than  a  "mere"  historical
document,  and  absolving the human medium from  any  unnecessary
burden of guilt (Ecker, 1992). If specific incentive to study the
structure  of  hoaxes was necessary, this horrible  example  from
recent history should be enough motivation for us to work hard at
studying and exposing hoaxes in our own field.
  The  present  article  focuses  on  a  particularly   resilient
fabrication  that  exhibits  all  the  important  features  of  a
successful ufological hoax, enabling us to analyze it in  detail.
As  we proceed with this study we will attempt to point  out  the
possible parallels among various UFO stories or rumors exhibiting
similar characteristics.

    Mention  UFOs  casually  in any  cocktail  conversation,  and
people  are  likely to bring up a number of "actual  cases"  they
have  heard  discuss  on television shows such  as  Sightings  or
Unsolved  Mysteries. The alleged UFO crash at Roswell, the  MJ-12
documents  (which purport to emanate from an American  Government
agency  that knows all about the nature and purpose of  UFOs  and
their alien occupants) and various sensational abduction
reports   will  probably  be  mentioned.  Then,  almost   as   an
afterthought,  someone may ask, "wasn't there a secret Navy  test
in the Forties, in which a whole destroyer actually disappeared?"
Others  may volunteer that Einstein had something to do with  it,
and that many serious researchers believed the incident to be the
key to the nature of UFOs. You will be confronted once again with
the tall tale of the Philadelphia Experiment.
  The  story,  of  which we have  just  celebrated  the  fiftieth
birthday, is a good example of a hoax about which everything  has
become known, thanks to many years of diligent research by people
who  were  first  fascinated  by  the  tale  and  gradually  grew
skeptical  of its extraordinary claims. Its impact on the  public
over the fifty years that have elapsed since the initial incident
has  been significant: one hardcover book signed  by  widely-read
author  Charles  Berlitz  and  veteran  paranormal   investigator
William  L. Moore has become the standard reference (Berlitz  and
Moore, 1979). It is "dedicated to the outriders of science  whose
quest  for knowledge takes them to the most distant stars and  to
the  innermost  worlds."  A feature  movie  directed  by  Stewart
Raffill  was released in 1984, starring Michael Pare in the  role
of  a  vanishing  sailor. The dramatic nature of  the  story  was
enhanced  by  its  impact  on  several  early  UFO   researchers,
including  Morris  K.  Jessup. It was given an  aura  of  further
credibility by the obvious interest shown by the Office of  Naval
Research in the initial stages and by the secrecy surrounding it.
Official  secrecy, which often results from  purely  bureaucratic
procedures,  tends  to  be  taken by  advocates  as  evidence  of
coverup, making wild speculation seem legitimate. Contributing to
the mystery was the enigmatic personality of the man who  claimed
to be the main witness and a direct link to space  intelligences,
Carl M. Allen alias Carlos Allende.

       Conclusions


  Few  tasks  are  as  important  in  the  field  of   paranormal
investigation as the detection and elimination of hoaxes.
An  area  of research that does not police itself  is  eventually
policed  by  others  with utterly  devastating  consequences,  as
recent examples of fraud in academic research have shown. Popular
ufology,  which thrives on rumors,  poorly-investigated  reports,
shoddy  scholarship and outright fraud to the detriment of  those
genuine facts that are potentially relevant to science,  provides
a  long history of colorful hoaxes that have come to  define  the
field in the mind of the general public and have tainted it  with
a negative image in the view of scientists and educated laymen.
  The problem with hoaxes is that they are charming, tantalizing,
entertaining,  and often correspond to what we would like  to  be
true, as opposed to what is actually true. We have seen that  the
Philadelphia  Experiment had all of these  characteristics.  This
hoax,  which should have died a long time ago under the  combined
efforts  of  several researchers, is an example of a  story  that
simply  refuses  to die. It is surrounded with such  an  aura  of
mystery that it continues to be successfully exploited. Like some
of those exhausted gold mines in the hills of Colorado which were
drained  of every ounce of metal in the nineteenth  century,  yet
revive  periodically  in the offering circulars  of  unscrupulous
underwriters  as  penny-stock  mining companies  with  new  fancy
names,  certain UFO stories always find gullible  new  investors.
Even in 1993 the tale of the disappearance of the DE173 has  lost
none of its peculiar charm.
  Hoaxes  have been defined as "deliberately  concocted  untruths
made  to  masquerade  as fact" (MacDougall  1958).  In  a  recent
theoretical article on hoaxes, Marcello Truzzi notes that  "there
has  been little deductive effort in social science  specifically
to  describe  or explain hoaxes." (Truzzi, 1993). He  points  out
that  according  to  Curtis MacDougall a hoax's  success  is  the
result  of  two sets of psychological forces  acting  within  the
victim:  under  the rubric "why we don't  disbelieve"  MacDougall
lists   ignorance,  superstition,  suggestion,  prestige.   Under
"incentives   to  believe"  he  lists  financial  gain,   vanity,
chauvinism, prejudice, pet theories, the thirst for thrills,  and
cultural  climate. We have seen that such factors were indeed  at
work in the infrastructure of the present story.
  MacDougall  also remarked: "When a hoax achieves the  longevity
to  qualify for classification as either myth or legend, hope  of
stopping  it almost may be abandoned." After fifty years  we  may
well  have reached that point in the matter of  the  Philadelphia
Experiment.

   Acknowledgments


  The author wishes to thank Mr.Edward Dudgeon for his invaluable
help   in   clarifying  the  happenings  in   Philadelphia.   The
willingness of VAdm. William D.Houser to review the manuscript of
this article is deeply appreciated. Among numerous correspondents
who  have  also  supplied precious assistance  in  tracking  down
various  parts  of the story we must acknowledge  William  Banks,
Gary  Edwards,  Allen  Hovey,  M.Troy,  Heidi  Streetman,   David
Edwards, Marshall Philyaw and Keith Sjosten.

        References


  Allende,  Carlos  (1967):  Letters  to  the  author,   personal
communication.

  Berlitz, Charles and Moore, William L. (1979): The Philadelphia
Experiment:  Project  Invisibility. New York:  Grosset  &  Dunlap
1979.

  Clark,  Jerome (1968) The Invisible Visitors from Outer  Space,
in  Steiger,  Brad  and  Whritenour,  Joan  (1968):  The  Allende
Letters. New York: Award Special, n.d., pp. XX-XX)

  Cohn,  Norman  (1967): Histoire d'un Mythe:  La  "Conspiration"
Juive  et  les Protocoles des Sages de  Sion.  Paris:  Gallimard.
French translation by Leon Poliakov of Warrant for Genocide.

  Dudgeon,  Edward  (1992): Letter of 29 November  1992.  Private
communication to the author.

  Ecker,  Don  (1992):  Hatonn's  World:  a  neo-Nazi  E.T.?  UFO
Magazine Vol.7, No.4, pp.30-31, July-August.

  Festinger,  Leon, Riecker, H.W. and Schachter, S. (1956):  When
Prophecy  Fails:  A social and psychological study  of  a  modern
group that predicted the destruction of the world. University  of
Minnesota Press.

  Goerman, Robert A. (1980): Alias Carlos Allende. FATE  Magazine
33, No.10, October.

  Hauser, Robert (1987): letter to the author, 27 March.

  Klimo, Jon (1993): UFOs: Billy Meier and the Pleiadian Contact.
IRIDIS Vol.31 No.10,  p.2, June. Berkeley: California Society for
Psychical Study.

  MacDougall,  Curtis D. (1958): Hoaxes. New York: Dover.  (First
published in 1940)

  Mailer, Norman (1991): Harlot's Ghost. New York: Random House.

  Petit, Jean-Pierre (1991): Enqute sur des Extraterrestres  qui
sont  dj  parmi  nous: Le Myst
re  des  Ummites.  Paris:  Albin
Michel.

  Pothier, Joseph (1993): The Philadelphia Experiment  Revisited.
Electric Spacecraft Journal Jul/Aug/Sep.92, issue 7, published 28
January  1993,  pp.15-25.  Asheville,  NC:  Electric   Spacecraft
Journal.

  Raytheon  Corporation  (1980): A new  electronic  shield  gives
invisible  protection  to  the  Fleet.  Full-page   advertisement
published in Barron's, October 6, p.3.

  Rim  Institute  (1993): Catalog of Events,  pp.14-15.  Phoenix,
Arizona: The Rim Institute.

  Steiger,  Brad  and  Sherry, and  Bielek,  Alfred  (1990):  The
Philadelphia   Experiment   and  other  UFO   Conspiracies.   New
Brunswick, NJ: Inner Light Publications.

  Truzzi,  Marcello  (1993):  The  Sociology  and  Psychology  of
Hoaxes.  In  Gordon Stein, Encyclopedia of Hoaxes.  Detroit,  MI:
Gale Research, pp.291-297.

  Vallee, Jacques F. (1991): Revelations: Alien Contact and Human
Deception. New York: Ballantine.

  Velasco,  Jean-Jacques  (1990):  Report  on  the  analysis   of
anomalous physical traces: the 1981 Trans-en -Provence UFO  case.
JSE 4,1, pp.27-48.


END

PARANET FILENAME: HOAX.TXT