Philadelphia Experiment, what really happened?

P

Phil Wainwright

Junior Member
Hi there all,

I have been exceptionally busy for the last couple of weeks and so I have not moved much further forward with my experimentations (see other thread) but it does not stop me reading......

I have now taken to re-reading most of my literature and I am finding some serious inconsistancies. I have taken to reading with my mobile handy, every name or event I am now Googling and finding that there are several debunking sites and also there is a mountain of material to make a far better movie than has been achieved so far.

We find differences in frequencies used, inconsistancies between wavelengths and frequencies (3 cm wavelength is NOT 450 MHz.....

I have seen a so called purchase list that includes the part number for the Delta T antenna, it is actually a multi element non directional radio antenna suited to HF...

Or is it?

The problem being that so many people are willing to say "I was there, I have been dissappeared and travelled through time...." but very few who seem to be able to deliver accurate information that stands up to scrutiny.

So, what happened?

Well logic dictates that magnetic field detection was used on mines and therefore degaussing had to be employed to save lives and ships.

We also know that ships were degaussed.

We also know that large lumps of ferrous material moving within the earth's magnetic field will have the effect of creating an EMF as well as building up residual magnetism. (small lumps of ferrous material as well! If you own a tool kit, when you buy it, most screwdrivers (unless sold specifically as magneitic screwdrivers) are not magnetised. Use the screwdriver for a while, and you will find that it begins to start holding small screws!!)

Therefore it would be logical to assume that ship-board degaussing would be the next step.

As a radio / radar / and weapons system engineer (as well as a crackpot inventor) I can see the attraction of umping up the fields 'to see what happens'. I guess that other engineers who had access to huge field generators would have to try the same thing....

Here we have the requirements to create the right environment for the Philadelphia Experiment to take place.

We know that electrons are subject to magnetic fields and can be 'steered' by magnetic fields. A CRT (pre-LED tv screens) prove this every day. The picture is formend by bending a stream of electrons using magnetic fields generated around the neck of the CRT (cathode ray tube).

Therefore, it would be a relatively logical step to try and deflect or disrupt radar beams by use of magnetic fields. As light is part of the electro-magnetic spectrum, it would also seem to be a reasonably logical step to try and bend light using the same technology......

So, my perception of the above conditions seems to make a form of the Philadelphia Experiment an absolute certainty as far as degaussing technology, and possible radar disruption using EMFs. But what about the other effects? I hope experimentation will prove something.

It would be so nice if someone would actually tell the truth about what happened.

(An example of this would be one story where a certain chap went over the side, and appeared in 1983. where he was amazed at TV's and modern technology. Over the years, the story developed so that it was not a direct trip to 1983, but stopped in the 2000's as well. Intitialy only one visit to the 2000's then two..... all before arriving in 1983 to be surprised at technology!!!!)

The only thing I am sure of, is that some experiment took place.

The only thing I know about this whole saga is that I shall try to recreate it.

Maybe then, once the test rig is complete, and myself and other invited guests begin work, we will find some measure of the truth behind The Philadelphia Experiment.
 
Phil Wainwright said:
Hi there all,

I have been exceptionally busy for the last couple of weeks and so I have not moved much further forward with my experimentations (see other thread) but it does not stop me reading......

I have now taken to re-reading most of my literature and I am finding some serious inconsistancies. I have taken to reading with my mobile handy, every name or event I am now Googling and finding that there are several debunking sites and also there is a mountain of material to make a far better movie than has been achieved so far.

We find differences in frequencies used, inconsistancies between wavelengths and frequencies (3 cm wavelength is NOT 450 MHz.....

I have seen a so called purchase list that includes the part number for the Delta T antenna, it is actually a multi element non directional radio antenna suited to HF...

Or is it?

The problem being that so many people are willing to say "I was there, I have been dissappeared and travelled through time...." but very few who seem to be able to deliver accurate information that stands up to scrutiny.

So, what happened?

Well logic dictates that magnetic field detection was used on mines and therefore degaussing had to be employed to save lives and ships.

We also know that ships were degaussed.

We also know that large lumps of ferrous material moving within the earth's magnetic field will have the effect of creating an EMF as well as building up residual magnetism. (small lumps of ferrous material as well! If you own a tool kit, when you buy it, most screwdrivers (unless sold specifically as magneitic screwdrivers) are not magnetised. Use the screwdriver for a while, and you will find that it begins to start holding small screws!!)

Therefore it would be logical to assume that ship-board degaussing would be the next step.

As a radio / radar / and weapons system engineer (as well as a crackpot inventor) I can see the attraction of umping up the fields 'to see what happens'. I guess that other engineers who had access to huge field generators would have to try the same thing....

Here we have the requirements to create the right environment for the Philadelphia Experiment to take place.

We know that electrons are subject to magnetic fields and can be 'steered' by magnetic fields. A CRT (pre-LED tv screens) prove this every day. The picture is formend by bending a stream of electrons using magnetic fields generated around the neck of the CRT (cathode ray tube).

Therefore, it would be a relatively logical step to try and deflect or disrupt radar beams by use of magnetic fields. As light is part of the electro-magnetic spectrum, it would also seem to be a reasonably logical step to try and bend light using the same technology......

So, my perception of the above conditions seems to make a form of the Philadelphia Experiment an absolute certainty as far as degaussing technology, and possible radar disruption using EMFs. But what about the other effects? I hope experimentation will prove something.

It would be so nice if someone would actually tell the truth about what happened.

(An example of this would be one story where a certain chap went over the side, and appeared in 1983. where he was amazed at TV's and modern technology. Over the years, the story developed so that it was not a direct trip to 1983, but stopped in the 2000's as well. Intitialy only one visit to the 2000's then two..... all before arriving in 1983 to be surprised at technology!!!!)

The only thing I am sure of, is that some experiment took place.

The only thing I know about this whole saga is that I shall try to recreate it.

Maybe then, once the test rig is complete, and myself and other invited guests begin work, we will find some measure of the truth behind The Philadelphia Experiment.
Click to expand...

Hi Phil

Just so you know, Popular Mechanics published an article about a man that had invented an invisiblity machine in 1930. There were pictures of the man gradually phasing out. I managed to purchase that issue. So it was public knowledge that invisibility was possible back then. The Philadelphia experiment didn't take place till 13 years later. Probably a much up-scaled version of the guys invention. I can find no info on the guys invention other than that article in Popular Mechanics. Kind of like the history of it's existence has been erased.

Of course I've been on a crusade the past couple of years to find out why our science can't figure this stuff out. And what I find out isn't pretty. Newton's laws of motion appear to have been rewritten. Those laws of motion do not apply to anything in our universe. They are false. Of course you wouldn't know that unless you paid attention to the actual physical observations those laws are supposed to be dervied from. So I don't think Newton had anything to do with what we are taught in school. He was a very smart person. So it appears someone is rewriting the history books. In fact for all we know, Newton may not have ever existed at all.

Even calculus has been rewritten. It's as if someone doesn't want one generation of mathematicians to communicate with a previous generation.

Now Al Bielek seems to tell his own version of the story. And he even has much more detail than others telling the story. I look with suspicion at his version. It's more like disinformation. But the word of mouth stories still persist from people that witnessed the experiment firsthand.

The guy that is missing from the history books that you should pay attention to is Tesla. His knowledge about resonant phenomena is probably what the Philadelphia experiment was based upon. You are probably familiar that it is the electric field of a specific wavelength that oscillates through an antenna of a specific length, that generates radio waves. So that basically is two different things in resonance with each other. What about sound waves? Ever seen that Memorex commercial where they shatter a crystal glass with sound of a specific pitch? And then this thing that I'm playing with at present. It's a mechanical oscillator. Tesla is claimed to have invented it. But all the info about it is not quite as it seems. I'm still playing with it. Yesterday I tuned it to a specific vibration, that caused the table I had it on, to shake wildly as if its legs had turned to jelly. It makes me wonder if this was the machine that Tesla destroyed, that got the name, Tesla's earthquake machine.

So I am of the opinion that the Philadelphia experiment was about resonance between different types of resonant phenomena.

That would invalidate any of the facts and figures about what frequencies to use. If you change the size of the device, everything else has to change with it. And of course the information and math on how to do that appears to be missing. But trial and error will find it out.



 

Posted Aug. 13, 2004

The Philadelphia Experiment

I remember the first time I heard about the Philadelphia experiment, it was in the summer of 1957, when a number of high-ranking Navy wives was setting around talking about the horrible things that happened on that ship.

In addition, in later years more information came out regarding the information known as the Philadelphia experiment. In 1984, a movie was made called the Philadelphia experiment, the first 15 minutes of the movie is an accurate account of what really happened. The rest of the movie is just a good Hollywood story.

John Von Neumann was the project director and head scientist. John was also in the first to inventor of the modern-day computer. And two other scientist Einstein and Tesla with was also ask to be part of the Philadelphia experiment, after reviewing the research data they both refuse to work on it because, it was too dangerous of a project.

I would like others to comment on the real facts of the Philadelphia experiment .

Professor Opmmur @);-
"Time Travel is the only way to Travel"
opmmur, Aug 13, 2004
 

In 1984, a movie was made called the Philadelphia experiment, the first 15 minutes of the movie is an accurate account of what really happened. The rest of the movie is just a good Hollywood story.

The Tubes that was broken were 6L6 tubes which was driving the ship's degaussing coils.
 
Oh, brilliant, and thank you.

I am a big fan of Tesla, and am reading as much as I can find about him, but the entire subject opens up cans, and each can is filled with cans of worms...

I am really glad of your post, as it gives me a degree of hope that I will find something. I am a very recent convert to this world, and so I know I have only scratched the surface. The problem I find is that each time I try to search each person or each recorded event, it descends into either debunkers of the original topic, or debunkers of the debunkers or then there is the tin foil hat brigade floating around as well.....

One of my other projects at the minute is also very heavily tied in with resonance and harmonics and so coupled with my radio and radar experience I am capable of understanding and safely building my test rigs. But this is where I have started noticing discrepancies, I am finding even documents quoted that have high provenance that include errors, that is why I am beginning to doubt the full spectrum of the original experiment.

I am very interested to hear about the popular mechanics article.... Could you give me the volume and issue number please? I am going to have to try and find a copy myself.....

But now I have another field of research. I have to find out what is happening to the laws of physics as we know them. If you could point me in the direction of some of the errors to begin with, I would be incredibly grateful. It would save me some leg work..... :D
 
Phil Wainwright said:
Oh, brilliant, and thank you.

I am a big fan of Tesla, and am reading as much as I can find about him, but the entire subject opens up cans, and each can is filled with cans of worms...

I am really glad of your post, as it gives me a degree of hope that I will find something. I am a very recent convert to this world, and so I know I have only scratched the surface. The problem I find is that each time I try to search each person or each recorded event, it descends into either debunkers of the original topic, or debunkers of the debunkers or then there is the tin foil hat brigade floating around as well.....

One of my other projects at the minute is also very heavily tied in with resonance and harmonics and so coupled with my radio and radar experience I am capable of understanding and safely building my test rigs. But this is where I have started noticing discrepancies, I am finding even documents quoted that have high provenance that include errors, that is why I am beginning to doubt the full spectrum of the original experiment.

I am very interested to hear about the popular mechanics article.... Could you give me the volume and issue number please? I am going to have to try and find a copy myself.....

But now I have another field of research. I have to find out what is happening to the laws of physics as we know them. If you could point me in the direction of some of the errors to begin with, I would be incredibly grateful. It would save me some leg work..... :D
Click to expand...

I was wrong on the date of that magazine. It was Popular Mechanics May 1934, page 645. I got mine off Ebay a few years ago. I did post a picture of that page a while back. But since then, the site where I had the picture has gone belly up. So I haven't found a suitable replacement site yet. If you PM me your email address, I could send that picture to you.

Now I've been trying to develop a time machine myself. It's based on the idea of modulating a gravity field with ramp waves in either a decreasing or increasing repetitive pattern. Since the flow rate of time is associated with gravitational field intensity. Changing the intensity will produce a time force in either the positive or negative direction. But I'm running into a big problem. I've been unsuccessful in developing electronic circuits that operate in the zero to 30Hz frequency range. I haven't investigated to see if that could be done using tubes. Using transistors is not working. MosFet transistors are not linear in response which makes them undesirable. I'm almost tempted to develop to use magnets and coils rotating on speed controlled shafts in the specified range.

But now after building Tesla's zero time generator, I realize this device appears to mimic the behavior of nuclear force. My experiments with a Tesla coil also show behavior that mimics nuclear force too. So it occurred to me that these devices might actually be amplifying the strong and weak nuclear forces. That kind of ties this to Bob Lazar's claims that there are two types of gravity.

Did Tesla or someone find a way to put these two machines in resonance with each other? This is something I want to investigate.

As for the laws of physics? There appears to be a disinformation campaign in progress that is severely damaging the knowledge base we are all taught from.

Are you familiar with Faraday's left hand rule? Your thumb points the direction of current in a wire, while your fingers point in the direction of the magnetic field. But that rule is being replaced with the right hand rule. Why? All it's going to do is create chaos.

I purchased a translated copy of Newton's Principia. It appears to be butchered. Missing segments and pictures. Kind of like it's been edited to remove anything that conflicts with present day physics. But the editors didn't get everything. The mistake was that Newton clearly states that centrifugal force is an acceleration. Mathematically that would be represented as F=A. Yet we are taught in school that F=MA. Let me just say that the equation F=MA is the foundation our physics stands upon. Without that, the whole house of cards falls down. Our reality isn't put together with theories. There are readily observable facts right in front of your nose.

If you pay attention when you get in your car, putting your foot on the gas pedal, you feel the presence of weight pushing you into the seat, while the car accelerates. And if you continue to accelerate across the curvature of the earths surface, centrifugal force will develop, making you and the car lighter. That's three forces. Undeniable physical observations, which make them facts. Where is the math to represent those facts?

Did you take calculus in school? Are you a little rusty? Try taking a refresher course. I did. Apparently calculus is now being taught backwards. Even the meaning of some basic symbols has been changed. What used to be called an integration is now called a differentiation. What a handicap that would be if you tried to decipher some math from say 50 years ago. But I investigated further. Even the calculus I was taught, was not what Newton invented. Throughout my life, algebra and geometry has helped me solve many problems along the way. I just find it a bit odd, that I have found no applications for the calculus that I was taught. It makes me question that the calculus I was taught may not even be viable mathematics. What a waste of time.

So why would the educators try and make us all dumb? Who decides what we all are taught? If you start to think about this, you begin to realize that mankind has nothing to gain, from this kind of control. So it stands to reason that this is not a man made type of control. Who ever the puppet masters are, it appears we are being steered way from this type of knowledge. It's like the Tower of Babel all over again.
 
The suppression of knowledge is something we shall have to look into.... By the way, PM sent to you Einstein....

My father has a lot of old engineering handbooks and manuals dating from the 1950's and 60's .... I shall have to have a look and see what is different.

As I mentioned in the PM, and possibly a useful fact for others in the situation of needing to create frequencies, I typically buy function generator kits to cover the right frequency range some as low as £20. I bought a 0 to 200kHz multi wave (sine, triangle and square) also has an editor to create your own custom waveform via PC. I just feed the outputs into either a suitable oscillator circuit or a power amplifier....

Messing with the inductance can then help to create the smooth waveform you are looking for.
 

Top