The Philadelphia Experiment The Philadelphia Experiment took place in the fall of 1943 when a group of scientists funded by the U. S. Government set out to turn a U. S. Cannon Class destroyer escort into an invisible war machine. The initial conspiracies surrounding the experiment were formulated by two scientists, William L. Moore and Charles Burlier’. After extensive research, Moore and Burlier’ concluded that The Philadelphia Experiment went awry when a U. S.
Naval Destroyer was used to conduct an experiment based on Albert Einstein Unified Field Theory, a theory thought to be blew to make objects invisible through the use of electromagnet currents. The officials and scientists in charge of The Philadelphia Experiment chose The US Eliding, a fat, 6,pH destroyer. The experiment sought to discover a new methodology of naval warfare and espionage. The scientific aspects of the experiment involved the idea of degaussing, a process which used electrical currents being passed through cables wrapped around the circumference of the ships haul, ultimately eliminating the ships magnetic field.
In the absence of a magnetic field, a ship has the ability to prevent magnetic mines from attaching themselves to the ship ND remain virtually undetectable on radar and sonar. The Philadelphia Experiment did not become a conspiracy theory until the public received news that several of the crew members aboard The US Eliding were killed in the experiment. For instance, the popular belief that the creamers of The US Eliding had been forced into remaining hospitalized until the end of the war.
With virtually no explanation at hand the public and conspirators had little choice, but to start speculating. The ways in which the public and conspirators deliver their narrative along with the interpretations of narratives lead to outlandish decrees. The objective of this essay is not to prove whether or not the conspiracies surrounding The Philadelphia Experiment are true or false. This essay does however; seek to investigate the ways in which the conspiracy is narrated by different parties involved in the matter.
The government’s decision to withhold information from the general public created an onslaught of conspiracy theories in pertinence to unknown manifestations during the experiment, ultimately leading to extremely dissimilar narratives of the public. This say will aim to explain: the relation between government secrecy and the wide range of narratives that surfaced due to the lack of a general understanding regarding the experiment. The Philadelphia Experiment followed the suite of many conspiracy theories in that it proved to yield ambiguous narratives.
There are a number of different reasons to explain why the narratives of conspirators differ from narrative to narrative. In this case the differentiation among narratives regarding The Philadelphia Experiment can be attributed to two factors: the first factor is, as Punster stated: “The specter of inspiration circulates in the fictional trappings of movies, television shows, popular novels, video games etc. ” (Punster 1) The second factor for the ambiguity in The information given to the public. As the ambiguity among narratives increases, so does confusion among narrators.
Conspiracy theorists take the information available to them and formulate their most logical credence; otherwise conspiracy would not be able to exist. As discussed in the introduction, The Philadelphia Experiment has very little factual evidence available, especially in comparison to more mainstream conspiracies. The experiment was highly classified among government officials and their effort to keep secrets within the proper confines was a success. The information that is available cannot be fully proven in any because there is no known documentation.
The last inhibitor to our understanding of how each account of the experiment is narrated is the fact the main researchers (Moore & Burlier’) of The Philadelphia Experiment only narrate their research in a solely historic context. Moore & Burlier’ did however conduct interviews of people with a potential to clarify aspects of the experiment. The authors claim to have interviewed at least one of the approximately forty-man crew, Engineer First Class Victor Silverman, who says he was on board when the vessel tolerated from Philadelphia to Norfolk and back.
Moore and Burlier’ insist that “the experiment later became the subject of a Special Memorandum from the Secretary of the Navy to Captain James R. Outage of the aircraft carrier US Intimate [C.V.-36] in May 1945. ” Later research by Moore & Burlier’ reveals that after reading a memo addressed by the secretary of the ship to the crew of The Intimate; requiring he crew to never speak of The Philadelphia Experiment outside the confines of their vessel. Already, the first narration of the experiment gives insight as to the importance of the highly classified information.
The fact that information is being hidden from us, and we know that information is being hidden us, would lead to belief that narrators claims either involve inside information given to them or narrators are conducting their own conceptualization of the experiment. Take for example the account of Carols Allendale, (aka Carl Allen) a merchant seaman aboard The Andrew Furthest, which was supposedly traveling in the same region as The US Eliding at the time of the experiment.
Allendale claims to have seen the vessel vanish, however the date that he gave to Moore & Burlier’ is inconstant with the supposed date the experiment took place. Although Allendale does not exemplify validity in his narrative, he is an important to the discussion of the experiment due to the fact that it gives us a better understanding to the rarity of valid information across all conspiracy mediums. A portion of the American population believed the experiment disregarded the verbal well-being of the soldiers aboard the ship.
Other conspirators believed The US Eliding was so affected by the electromagnetic currents that it disappeared from the Philadelphia harbor and reappeared shortly after in Pennsylvania, suggesting to many, that The US Eliding tolerated through time. During the time of The Philadelphia Experiment, the public remained irresolute of provide a sufficient explanation for the hospitalizing of 20 US Eliding crew members. * alleged experiment took place during WI, a time when scientists all over the world searched for the ultimate weapon. D tolerated from Philadelphia, Norfolk, Virginia and back to Philadelphia Moore and Burlier, however, never isolate who exactly said that electromagnetic fields could make a ship invisible. The authors claim to have interviewed at least one of the approximately forty-man crew during the July/August experiment, Engineer First Class Victor Silverman, who says he was on board when the vessel tolerated’ from Philadelphia to Norfolk and back. The metallization of the Litigated Norfolk was witnessed by five British. In-Class Presentation of Your Project – 20% (10+10) Excellent Presentations are well organized.
They consist of a clear and precise identification of the research project. They display a full understanding of the specific intervention of the work via a thesis that is sharply focused. They convey that significance fully and clearly to the class. (They fully satisfy the so what? Question. ) They demonstrate how the thesis of the project is supported by the methods employed and the data/interpretation developed in the project. They display an awareness of how to improve the project and a respect for the peer review process. Good Presentations are mostly well organized.
They consist of a mostly clear and almost precise identification of the research project. The thesis is articulated, if somewhat vague. The significance of the project is partially identified and partially conveyed to the class. (The so what? Question is partially satisfied. ) The relationship of methods and data to thesis is partially understood. They demonstrate respect for the peer review process and openness to suggestions of how to improve the project. Acceptable Presentations are partially organized but also lose focus at times. They suggest a specific research project but the thesis needs to be refined and sharpened.
The significance of the project is suggested but not well conveyed to the class. (The so what? Question is addressed but not answered. ) Methods are not clearly explained and the data is only partially specified. They display respect for the peer review process and openness to suggestions of how to improve the project. Unacceptable Presentations are poorly organized. They do not convey the thesis of the project. Methods are not conveyed clearly. Data is not specified. There is little respect for the peer review process or appreciation of suggestions to improve the reject.
Annotated Bibliography – 10% Excellent Annotated bibliographies have full citations of 8-10 sources directly relevant to the main thesis of the project. The annotations fully achieve the goals of quality annotations described on the Costs handout on Annotated Bibliography. Thesis (argument) and major supporting details; an evaluation of the ideas and points in the source; and a sense of how the source connects with your project and other sources in the annotated bibliography. ” Good Annotated bibliographies have full citations of 8-10 sources directly relevant to he main thesis of the project.
The annotations mostly achieve the goals of quality annotations described on the STW handout. Acceptable Annotated bibliographies have full citations of 8-10 sources directly relevant to the main thesis of the project. The annotations partially achieve the goals of quality annotations described on the STW handout. Unacceptable Annotated bibliographies do not have full citations of 8-10 sources directly relevant to the main thesis of the project. The annotations rarely achieve the goals of quality annotations described on the STW handout.