Debunking The Philadelphia Experiment

[AxIoN]

This is more of a Discussion than anything but this interested me so much I made the decision to come here.
The Wiki article of the incident is listed here. My main interest is in the next to last paragraph of the "Synopsis." Here is the qoute "the Eldridge (The ship involved in the incident) not only became invisible, but she physically vanished from the area in a flash of blue light and teleported to Norfolk, Virginia, over 200 miles (320 km) away. It is claimed that the USS Eldridge sat for some time in full view of men aboard the ship SS Andrew Furuseth, whereupon the USS Eldridge vanished from their sight and then reappeared in Philadelphia at the site it had originally occupied. It was also said that the warship went approximately 10 minutes back in time."

It is said the warship went back in time aprox. 10 minutes. OK no big deal, right? But the says the Eldridge sat for "Some Time" in view of the crew in Norfolk. So there we have a undefined period of time. If it was less than 10 minutes then we would have a report of 2 of the same ships merging with each other then one disappearing, correct? But if they were merged and as the account states she crew "merged with she ship" or incurred "severe side effects" they wouldn't be able to then complete the experiment.

So if this event Actually occurred then we would have a account of 2 ships merging together in Philly, with no knowledge of the teleportation or time travel actually occurring for we would be in a different time line from when the events occurred. No?

 

[Einstein]

I'm not quite clear on how you interpreted that two ships merged into one. There were two locations where the USS Eldridge was reported to have been. The ship was gone for an extended period of time. So it may have appeared in Norfolk for let's say 50 minutes. But was only gone from the Philadelphia site for let's say 40 minutes. Comparing the two times would indicate a 10 minute travel back time. There are eye witness accounts. And none of them report a merging taking place.

I do know there is a deliberate coverup of all the eye witness accounts. Since none of the eye witness accounts made it into recorded history. But I heard about this story second hand from a friend who got it first hand from one of the Navy wives that witnessed the Eldridge disappear.

 

[AxIoN]

I was merely speculating on the fact that it does not list the amount of time that it was gone from the Philadelphia location. If that amount of time is unknown then how do they arrive at the conclusion that the ship went back 10 minutes? Clearly indicates a cover up, but that was my main point. I know the ship(s) didn't merge, but wouldn't that have been the case if the time of disappearance lasted 10> minutes?

 

[Einstein]

You are speculating on something unknown. So any outcome would not be predictable. No one has any scientific studies on how objects merge. However merging does take place naturally in locations where there has been tornado activity. So the merging phenomena is real.

 

[AxIoN]

I'm pretty sure everything on this forum is unknown and speculation. I am taking slight offense by your need to point that out.

 

[Einstein]

I'm pretty sure everything on this forum is unknown and speculation. I am taking slight offense by your need to point that out.

No offense intended. I am very interested in time travel myself. But that will never happen if I entertain speculation over fact. Besides the facts are far more interesting.

 

[AxIoN]

Without speculation thought do you believe any progress could be made in this field? Facts are merely "a thing that is indisputably the case." But a speculation could arguably be the case aforementioned.

 

[Einstein]

Definitely a fact based approach would produce a fact based outcome. Much less trial and error is involved with the use of facts. Speculation is not constrained to reality.

 

[AxIoN]

I appreciate your input. I do agree that much less trail and error is involved with the use of facts, but I also believe that randomness (speculation) could potentially provide a result that would take a lot more time with a fact based approach. The key word being could, it may or may not. Hence the word "Random"

 

[Einstein]

You can take a look at our current state of affairs with our science. Speculation seems to be the prime motivator with that. We aren't going anywhere with our current scientific approach. It does appear all scientific advancement stopped after the atomic bomb. It kind of suggests what we are taught in school is not the same knowledge that was taught that led up to the development of the atomic bomb.