Talk:Philadelphia Experiment
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Hob Gadling in topic Problem with ref citations.
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philadelphia Experiment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Counter Illuminance
editI believe that the whole Philadelphia Project story is confabulated from real war time research that would have made ships sitting on the horizon relative to another ship very difficult to see. Please see the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffused_lighting_camouflage. This research was abandoned because high resolution radar was developed within a short period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.19.179 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds a lot like original research, but if you can find a reliable source to support your claim you're more than welcome to add it. SadBlueRobot (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is an educational TV documentary on this. It confirms with photos, films, and interviews with people involved that it was a, now declassified, secret counter luminescence experiment that went wrong. The counter luminence lights overloaded the ship's electrical system and caused a fire producing acrid, toxic smoke from burning insulation and metal. There were no deaths but several smoke inhalation casualties. The ship returned to port and experiments scheduled with that equipment were canceled at that time.
98.164.67.198 (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- I find this interesting because when I saw this movie and had really enjoyed it, I was telling my father - who had worked in Canadian Naval R&D at Ste Hyacinthe during WWII - all about the plot, and his comment was "Yeah. That's basically what happened". This man was not a fantasist or a conspiracy theorist, so leaves me to wonder even more. CybercroneCA (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Your father sounds like a man with a dry humor or like someone who likes tall tales, but Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not on hearsay from random people on the internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I find this interesting because when I saw this movie and had really enjoyed it, I was telling my father - who had worked in Canadian Naval R&D at Ste Hyacinthe during WWII - all about the plot, and his comment was "Yeah. That's basically what happened". This man was not a fantasist or a conspiracy theorist, so leaves me to wonder even more. CybercroneCA (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Possible fictional inspration
editI've found a short story from 1942 that might be the origin or at least the inspiration for this story. 'The Phantom Armada' written by Stanton A. Coblentz (Possibly a pseudonym), published in Fantastic Adventures features the US Navy deploying an experimental 'invisibility smokescreen' in 1982 whose effects turn out to be a little longer lasting than the inventor intended. 58.175.90.122 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Problem with ref citations.
editIn the first paragraph of the Origins there's a list of numbers that are presumably references but they have no hypertext. 62.49.216.195 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you mean "27–29, 35, 65, 80, 102, 115, 163–165" - those are page numbers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)