A Bielek's credibility - is there any ?

Carol wrote:

golfsierra wrote:

Carol wrote:Okay, this thread is about the Missile Launch

and then I'll address the issue about Al Bielek briefly.

Next, Dan. Paola Harris is a close personal friend of mine and a world-renown photojournalist in the Exopolotics and Ufology field. She has done dozens of interviews all in person and all recorded so everything is transcribed word-for-word. Since she actually sits down with each of the people she interviews she also is in a situation where she has become close friends with many of these notables and cross checks information with other well known “credible” people in the field. Paola has an excellent sense of who is lying and will not publish or print something she senses is bogus. She did interviews with Al and Dan. Her interviews are valid and these individuals, in her professional opinion and with her wide varied background (which is immense) are on the up-and-up. Anyone can debunk someone else, but debunking doesn’t mean that information presented to her wasn’t true.

As I'm the one who reviews and edits many of these unpublished transcripts I can also validate that the information she has is valid.

Would you mind to join a discussion about the credibility of Alfred Bielek ?
I don't know how your friend Paola Harris is able to find out by her senses, if other people are credible or lying, and frankly I don't care. But me and my colleagues have done a solid 5-year investigation into Alfred Bielek's claims about his alleged participation in the Philadelphia Experiment and proved him to be a liar. I chose to develop knowledge from facts instead of believing into something, what is your position if you had the choice ?

Best regards,

Golf Sierra

Then we should start a new thread on this as I love facts... as long as they are just that, facts. Having worked with the scientific model it is also well known that facts can be used to skew information and present a picture entirely different at times to make a slanted point of view. I bring to the table numerous transcripts from a variety of sources who worked on the inside. And some personal first hand contactee information.
What are your sources? And please feel free to start your thread on this as I would look forward to reading what you wish to share.
Would you like to start with this?

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gschelm@libero.it&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Carol wrote:

But having observed a time traveler up close and personal.. he was a bit that way as well.

When someone makes such a poor witness, personally, for myself I like to check out other data for corroboration.

golfsierra wrote:Despite bielek-debunked.com often was criticized by the pro-Bielek fraction as an attempt to discredit Al Bielek credibility, it is until now the only thorough investigation into his claims about his involvement in the Philadelphia Experiment. In the late 1990s, PX researcher Andrew Hochheimer (http://www.softwareartist.com/philexp.html) ran an email list, where interested people got together to exchange their views and information about the Philadelphia Experiment (PX). Beside book sources, the internet had become a very busy place during the 1990s, especially through many boards, forums and web sites dealing with the UFO phenomenon and so-called urban legends.
Our group came across so many web sites parotting Bielek's speeches that we could not omitt him as a possible vital factor affecting our research efforts.
Beside Marshall Barnes, Fred Houpt an myself, there were some other 4-5 very active people on that email list, and we decided to put Bielek's statements to a test. The aim was to either find proof for his version of his story (which we thought we could achieve) or to find out about him lying, which was a disappointment for all of us.
So, Bielek's military career, his family and his previous activities became subjects of our investigation. The picture material still available on Michael Houtzagers web site was another loose end to trace back, which we partially could achieve. According to Houtzager, the pictures were provide to him by Preston Nichols and Alfred Bielek. I will begin with a very easy thing to verify for you. You can find the details at the corresponding web pages on bielek-debunked.com.

The Final Briefing Hoax
On Houtzagers web site, there is the picture of the "Final Briefing" of the PX Test Crew which according tho Bielek's statement was held onboard of the USS Eldridge (DE173) just before the experiment was conducted (http://www.bielek.com/ab_edcameron.htm, in the middle of the page "Final briefing inside the USS Eldridge August 9, 1943. Lecturer - A. Yaglu. Don Thor, Oscan Schneider, Lawrence Schmidt (Maxon Electronics Corp.)").



There is a DE-class ship mooring a the piers of Albany, NX, the USS Slater (http://www.ussslater.org/). I sent a photo to the guys maintaining that ship as a WWII museum. The result was amazing: There simply is not a single room that has the size of the room shown on the picture onboard of this ship ! Beside this, you can see Neon lighting installed, but as we were told by the Navy experts, Neon lights were not built into Navy ships before the early 1960s ! So how can the photo "Final Briefing" show the test crew of 1943 onboard of a DE-class ship ?

This is something very easy to be verified by anybody of you: Just sent a copy of that "Final Briefing" picture to the people of the USS Slater and ask, if there is such a room onboard of a ship of that type. And don't forget to ask about the Neon lights on the ceiling. You can do that by email, just from your desk, or you can visit the ship in NY and find out yourself.

I'm looking forward to your comments.

Best regards,

Golf Sierra

Well, having my morning coffee here
I came upon this thread. Then I got to this post...interesting. So, my question here is natural......who is "your group", and seriously, due to this research you have seemed to be so thorough with, what it the goal here? I personally know time travel is real. In fact it's within the time lines of history if you dig deep enough. What is the goal of your "group"? To debunk Al, or debunk time travel?

golfsierra wrote:Despite bielek-debunked.com often was criticized by the pro-Bielek fraction as an attempt to discredit Al Bielek credibility, it is until now the only thorough investigation into his claims about his involvement in the Philadelphia Experiment.
...
Our group came across so many web sites parotting Bielek's speeches that we could not omitt him as a possible vital factor affecting our research efforts.
Beside Marshall Barnes, Fred Houpt an myself, there were some other 4-5 very active people on that email list, and we decided to put Bielek's statements to a test. The aim was to either find proof for his version of his story (which we thought we could achieve) or to find out about him lying, which was a disappointment for all of us.
So, Bielek's military career, his family and his previous activities became subjects of our investigation.