The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited – Part II: Difference between revisions
m ClaudeBot moved page The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited ? Part II to The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited – Part II: Fix mojibake: restore en-dash / quotation marks / diacritic (reviewed batch) |
Fix mojibake in body (reviewed batch) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox paper | {{Infobox paper | ||
| title = The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited | | title = The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited – Part II | ||
| author = [[Joseph Pothier]] | | author = [[Joseph Pothier]] | ||
| keywords = [[history]], [[investigative report]], [[Philadelphia Experiment]] | | keywords = [[history]], [[investigative report]], [[Philadelphia Experiment]] | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
The Philadelphia Experiment thesis essentially claims that the United States Navy conducted an experiment in invisibility using the destroyer escort USS Eldridge (DE 173) sometime in 1943. Part I of this essay critiqued the principal expression of the thesis, William L. Moore?s and Charles Berlitz? The Philadelphia Experiment. In Part I, the thesis was found internally inconsistent: The authors were not consistent in their claims of whether there were one, two, or three experiments, and when and where these supposed experiment(s) happened. Part I also demonstrated that the methodology used in the Philadelphia Experiment was hopelessly flawed by relying on a | The Philadelphia Experiment thesis essentially claims that the United States Navy conducted an experiment in invisibility using the destroyer escort USS Eldridge (DE 173) sometime in 1943. Part I of this essay critiqued the principal expression of the thesis, William L. Moore?s and Charles Berlitz? The Philadelphia Experiment. In Part I, the thesis was found internally inconsistent: The authors were not consistent in their claims of whether there were one, two, or three experiments, and when and where these supposed experiment(s) happened. Part I also demonstrated that the methodology used in the Philadelphia Experiment was hopelessly flawed by relying on a "validity by association" paradigm. The "evidence" supporting the Philadelphia experiment thesis becomes more and more anonymous the closer one comes to the purported events of Eldridge?s supposed disappearance(s), and hence cannot be verified using the basic tools of historical inquiry. | ||
[[Category:Scientific Paper|philadelphia experiment revisited ii]] | [[Category:Scientific Paper|philadelphia experiment revisited ii]] | ||
Revision as of 20:47, 20 July 2026
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited – Part II |
| Author(s) | Joseph Pothier |
| Keywords | history, investigative report, Philadelphia Experiment |
| Published | 1993 |
| Journal | Electric Spacecraft Journal |
| Number | 8 |
| Pages | 14-21 |
Abstract
The Philadelphia Experiment thesis essentially claims that the United States Navy conducted an experiment in invisibility using the destroyer escort USS Eldridge (DE 173) sometime in 1943. Part I of this essay critiqued the principal expression of the thesis, William L. Moore?s and Charles Berlitz? The Philadelphia Experiment. In Part I, the thesis was found internally inconsistent: The authors were not consistent in their claims of whether there were one, two, or three experiments, and when and where these supposed experiment(s) happened. Part I also demonstrated that the methodology used in the Philadelphia Experiment was hopelessly flawed by relying on a "validity by association" paradigm. The "evidence" supporting the Philadelphia experiment thesis becomes more and more anonymous the closer one comes to the purported events of Eldridge?s supposed disappearance(s), and hence cannot be verified using the basic tools of historical inquiry.