It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
References to the Philadelphia Experiment (admitted to be fiction by it's creator on his deathbed).
Originally posted by consolution
...
Are these two guys simply making up that story, flat-out lying or plainly fantasizing into the camera? A psychological face and body language reading could be interesting.
In 1988 , an elderly man named Alfred (Al) Bielek began giving interviews and lectures about his involvement in the Philadelphia Experiment. Or rather, the involvement of a Navy sailor named Edward Cameron. As Bielek has explained it, the U.S. government used alien technology to age-regress Cameron back to infancy, then placed him with the Bielek family of New York.
Whatever the hell was going on, Bielek was consciously unaware of his previous existence until January of 1988, when memories of his life came back to him during a late night showing of the movie The Philadelphia Experiment. He realized that as Edward Cameron, he had been on board the USS Eldridge with his brother Duncan when it dematerialized in 1943, and was transported into the distant future.
Al Bielek was "born" in 1927 (according to the forged birth certificate provided to him) and became an electronics engineer in California and Arizona, working for various military contractors. His first unusual life experience came in 1956, when he encountered a man he now identifies as Mark Hamill. The actor would have been about 5 years old at this point, but apparently this was a future Mark Hamill who was dropping in on 1956 for some reason.
...
The Cameron Boys Throughout the '70s and most of the '80s, Duncan Cameron and Al Bielek worked together at Montauk without realizing they had once been half-brothers, or that they had taken part in the Philadelphia Experiment (though Bielek admitted to a fascination with it). Bielek had no inkling that he had been age-regressed and adopted; Cameron had no clue that he was the reincarnation of his own dead brother, also named Duncan, born in Germany in 1917. Cameron says that in 1963, his soul was transplanted into the body it now occupies (which belonged to a child born to his parents in 1951). This "explains" why he is technically far too young to have served on the Eldridge during WWII. I wonder what happened to the soul of the child Duncan Cameron? That part hasn't been explained. Not that the explanation would make much sense.
...
By 1947 the Navy apparently had no further use for Edward Cameron. Von Neumann ordered that he be age-regressed to the age of one and placed in the care of Albertina and Arthur Bielek of New York in the year 1928. Meanwhile, Duncan Cameron had returned to the year 1983. The loss of his time lock caused him to age and die within days, despite the Navy's best efforts to save him. It was up to Al Bielek to convince "his" aging parents to have another child so that Duncan's soul, stored in a Navy facility, could be transplanted into the child. The new Duncan Cameron was born in 1951. In 1963, the old Duncan's soul was placed in the new Duncan's body. Both Cameron brothers lived out their new lives without any conscious awareness of their previous existence. Then, in 1988, the memories of Edward Cameron surfaced in Al Bielek's mind as he watched The Philadelphia Experiment on HBO.
Anyway, Daniel put out another one, take a peek.
The Cosmic Sector
Because of the reciprocal relation between space and time as motion, everything that we see in space has its temporal equivalent. If one were to move their consciousness out of the material, spatial sector and in to the cosmic, temporal sector, everything would appear inside-out.
However, if you were born in the realm of 3D time, you would claim that folks living here in the material sector had everything inside-out, upside-down and backwards, because your consciousness would be adjusted to viewing time as locations, and space as force fields. It is all a matter of perspective.
Extra-Dimensional Entities
Now we have the basics to understand extra-dimensional entities, the majority of which are entities with a presence in 3D time. This includes entities that are native born in the cosmic sector that have learned to access space, and entities in the material sector to have obtained conscious access to the realm of 3D time.
Consider a cosmic creature, a native-born temporal entity that has their physical structure in time, and therefore can only interact with 3D space as force —they are invisible to our normal, waking consciousness, yet since time changes space, we can still bump into things that aren’t there and they can make things fly around the room without any observable cause. Ghosts, poltergeist and the like are all entities of this nature—entities with a structure in 3D time. And yes, we appear as ghosts to thecosmic life in 3D time, as we cross the barrier in the other direction!
Two other situations arise for extra-dimensional life, where an entity begins to consciously interact with the spirit complex, going “beyond space and time.” When material sector life develops sufficient intelligence, that intelligence provides the modus operandi for free will to follow the silver cord across into the dimensions of equivalent space —the temporal dimensions. Use your mind to open thedoor to time .
When someone here in the material sector begins to access the temporal dimensions, we call it ascension . When a cosmic entity, living in 3D time, performs a similar growth of consciousness, then they are actually accessing their equivalent time dimensions giving them access to the 3D spatial dimensions. These cosmic entities that are crossing over from the 3D time to 3D space are the ones werefer to as ascended masters, angelic beings or advanced spirits.
Originally posted by fourthmeal
That's a lot of assumption for stuff you (and I) don't really know. A LOT of assumption.
Anyway, Daniel put out another one, take a peek.
Bielek admits he was working a day job in California for the duration of the Montauk Project. Lucky for him he had special access to every commuter's wet dream, a secret high-speed underground magnetic levitation train!
Originally posted by fourthmeal
That's a lot of assumption for stuff you (and I) don't really know. A LOT of assumption.
Originally posted by micpsi
In all these extraordinary claims by people on the internet, there is NEVER smoking gun proof of what they say that they did, they saw, etc, etc. So everyone has to make up his or her own mind. And that's why we have forums like ATS to debate the issues raised by these so-called "insiders" and others claiming some kind of deep knowledge or insight.
On the other hand, if you are tired of red herrings, bogus whistleblowers out to make a fast buck and Pied Pipers leading you on fruitless chases that lead nowhere, study the work presented here by someone who says nothing about himself because he is content to let the mathematical proof in his astounding research speak for itself:
smphillips.8m.com...
The only issue is: are you up to being able to understand it all?
Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by fourthmeal
Care to share what he shared with you because so far all you have mentioned is "compartmentalization", which is hardly proof of anything. All types of organized groups (terrorist, intelligence and criminal type) have been known to used compartmentalization to keep things secret.
I'm sure the government has carried out secret projects but the crap that the Montauk group has made up isn't one of them and if "Daniel" claims to have worked with them then he is as full of crap as they are and unless someone can actually come up with a working repeatable experiment everything is just a crackpot theory.
edit on 20-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by fourthmeal
What gives you the cred to say that Montauk was fake? I've seen the argument, I consider it invalid.
I don't think we want another working experiment of Montauk. IF true, there have been enough temporal issues created on that project alone to last us a while. Some things are better off left to the past.
What I CAN say is that indeed craft do exist, that they were taken apart and reverse engineered bit by bit, and that our M.I.C. did what they could to use the parts off them and make their own, with technology that is STILL way ahead of our time as we have it today. This part and the existence of ET's in general (though not as portrayed in movies), which is all that my source was open to say. I explained it was all compartmentalized so you could understand that very few observers (like my source) could make out the big picture. Just working in a room and seeing something happen in another, and then told "nothing happened" and that was that. This is compartmentalization, nobody has the big picture or evidence of it, so all we have is fragments from different points of view.
Make sense?
Originally posted by fourthmeal
You realize that by calling a group of people "tinfoil hat brigade" you are labeling them, grouping them by a form of identity, so that you (the opposite group) can feel superior.
BTW, Daniel never said he saw the big picture. He said he too was compartmentalized, but he grouped up with others and they formed a big picture.
For my source's sake, he did not do this with others. He remained quiet all the way through his military career (which likely blossomed because of his ability to stay quiet, I imagine.) With what he saw and heard, he kept it all the way to old age, almost to his grave. It was explained to me by him that I was seeking answers so he wanted to give them to me, from at least his point of view.
Now related to my source vs. what Daniel put out there, all I have been saying is that for the parts that my source has told me, Daniel's info lines up. The rest is unknown to me, and may be true or may not be. That may be deliberate or it could be more of a perspective / opinion thing. Time will tell if Daniel and indeed all the "New Agers" are correct or not. Not a lot of time, either.
What I CAN say is that indeed craft do exist, that they were taken apart and reverse engineered bit by bit, and that our M.I.C. did what they could to use the parts off them and make their own, with technology that is STILL way ahead of our time as we have it today. This part and the existence of ET's in general (though not as portrayed in movies), which is all that my source was open to say.
Originally posted by fourthmeal
Whether you label yourself, or label others a name, it does not matter. Think about it, does a group really serve to identify who you really are? Of course not. You are an individual with your own unique thoughts.
Now, regarding my source, I just explained that. My quote a few posts above:
What I CAN say is that indeed craft do exist, that they were taken apart and reverse engineered bit by bit, and that our M.I.C. did what they could to use the parts off them and make their own, with technology that is STILL way ahead of our time as we have it today. This part and the existence of ET's in general (though not as portrayed in movies), which is all that my source was open to say.
Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by daskakik
He also dealt with technology from their ships, whether or not the Montauk chair came from one is unknown.
I guess what I'm saying is, he confirmed for me before he passed away that we are not alone, that beings are with us here now, and that we have reverse-engineered their tech to our benefit.
So when other "insiders" perhaps more directly involved with these projects speak about the things my source did, I perk up because I know those to be true. The rest is details, and that's where the lies / deception could come in. Which is why I said before that I am really only paying attention to the information that is corroborating directly anyway.
When you consider that I *know* that ET beings and their craft exist, we must also assume that FTL travel exists. Since current mainstream science as known today cannot account for FTL travel or explain it, I have to look elsewhere.
Is Daniel full of BS? This gets back to the whole "resonation" thing. It rings true, or at least the parts I understand which admittedly I get lost in some of the concepts. No way it could all be true because nobody ever has the whole picture, but so far I haven't run across anything that screams B.S. to me.