Montauk Project Blast From the Past

[urethra franklin]

I found this on my computer, it's a post from the old camphero.com (or was it montaukproject.com?) message board that closed up shop a good 10+ years ago. I don't ever remember saving this, but I must have found it interesting enough to keep around at the time LOL

The file was titled "rick.txt" and dated 12/26/99

I think this is pretty insightful and debunks most of the "pseudo-science" preached in the Montauk Project series of books....

All the links are long dead, haven't tried archive.org on them yet though.

Just in case anyone is confused, this was NOT written by me!!!

Hi--- Just discovered your Web page. So Preston's allegations are alive and
well, and breeding lots of discussion, I see.

I first learned of the "Montauk Project" through that famous videotape made
around 1989. As a former Long Islander, I had been to the Montauk lighthouse
a few times as a kid, but never paid much attention to the base itself until
I heard Nichols' story. Now I had to see it, especially since I'd been
intrigued by the legend of the "Philadelphia Experiment" for a while before
hearing of Nichols. My angle is that of an electronics tech. I can 'sort of'
see how this stuff could be do-able, but the details are too scant to try
building anything yet.

A friend and I drove out from PA, where I now live, and brought a camcorder
along. This was in the summer of 1991, when the radar building had not
yet been boarded up.

The place was very interesting to electronics techs like us, but we saw NO
evidence bearing out the wild stories that Nichols was telling, although we
did notice some interesting things, such as ceiling lights left on on the 2nd
floor of the radar building, the elevator floor being concreted in, chains
and all, so that the elevator could not go down below ground level anymore,
etc. But basically we just explored a thoroughly dilapidated and vandalized
old base. We have maybe 1/2 hr of video, but my friend is nervous about it
being distributed and doesn't want his identity known. We did find it amusing
that in Preston's first book, he mentions that "video cameras were seen at
the top of the radar building"--- we're pretty sure that's US who have been
enshrined, in his book, by exaggeration and sensationalism. There were no
other cameras there, at least in 1991.

By the way, your heckler named "CRASH" was right; the big radar antenna DOES
turn a bit in the wind, despite its massive size (the drive motors were
removed years ago; the casings lay on the ground below). The reverberating
creaks and groans (due to the moving antenna) in the building are eerie.
The guy who chose to bicker with "Crash" over whether the laws of physics
would allow such a large antenna to be blown around, should burn his energy
on more fruitful exchanges of info. No, we didn't see the antenna rotate
"several radians" around a circle, but it does move. In fact, if you can
get inside the chain-link fencing on the catwalk just under the antenna,
you can enter an oval opening and climb up through a cylinder in the middle
of the antenna, and come out on the roof that way. We were afraid of trying
that, especially with the wind moving the antenna--- if that thing were to
swing around and catch your leg as you were going through that hole, it
would slice your leg off, I'm sure.

One thing I noticed was that there were sections of radar waveguide missing
between the big Amplitron tubes and the openings for the waveguides in the
ceiling; the openings were carefully covered with plastic and taped up
neatly--- not what you'd expect to see if a "monster" had been ransacking
the place and Preston was frantically "torching the waveguides" in an effort
to kill the output of the transmitter! In fact, about the only thing we saw
that looked "smashed", rather than just decayed and vandalized, was at the
front of the building that resembles a church on the outside, and has what
appears to be a basketball court inside. That building had some of the front
ripped off, near the roof. The exposed wood looked too new to have been
broken apart in 1983 by a rampaging "monster".

The other thing we wondered about was why several of the houses on the base
had the word "PICKLED" stencilled on them. Does anyone know what that means?
We too were wondering if there were any dangerous chemicals or even radioactive
wastes stored on the base. We did find out that you'd better check yourself
carefully for the tiny deer ticks whose bites cause Lyme disease, if you've
been wandering through the woods or tall grass in the area.

On another visit I went to see Preston Nichols at his home in East Islip, L.I.
We sat inside "Spacetime Labs"-- which turned out to be a rickety little
garage in back of his modest house. On top of the garage was his famous wood
frame "Delta-T Antenna"-- he had it hooked up to his shortwave radios rather
than to any "time-warping" equipment. I also saw his "Zero-Time Reference
Generator"--- it turned out to be an aircraft VOR tester made by
Hewlett-Packard(?), not any kind of "exotic" technology. Unless, that is, you
don't know what a VOR is....

Which brings me to one of your discussion page inquiries about a building in
Commack, L.I. with a white cone on top: It's most likely a VOR facility.
VOR stands for VHF Omni Range, and it's an aircraft navigation transmitter.
Those 'circles' you see on pilots' maps relate to this. I bring this up
because Preston claims that the VOR and the Philadelphia Experiment share a
common technical ground.

The VOR radio band is located just above the top end of the FM broadcast band
-- about 110 to 120 MHz. If you tune in to a VOR station on an aircraft radio,
you'll hear a low-frequency "fluttering" sound mixed with a high-pitched
warble, occasionally punctuated by a Morse Code ID.

[urethra franklin]

PART 2....jesus this is long

The VOR "cone" contains a rotating antenna that throws a radio-frequency
carrier signal around a circle at 30 times per second. A second, vertical,
antenna, mentioned by one of your correspondents, radiates a "reference"
signal. One of these antennas' carriers is frequency-modulated by an audio
signal; the other is "AM'd" (the rotating signal, I think). The pilot's
VOR receiver picks up the composite signal, separates it into its rotating
and reference parts, and compares them. The phase difference between them
depends on where your airplane is, around that circle of RF transmitted by
the conical antenna. The phase difference is translated into a compass bearing
and the pilot knows if he is on course with reference to the local VOR station
he is passing.

In the popular accounts of the Philadelphia Experiment we are told of a
"rotating magnetic field" as the magical key to spacetime bending. Al Bielek
says that there also needs to be a "reference" signal which gives you your
"bearing", as it were, when you're being shifted in time or space. Bielek and
Nichols claim that Nikola Tesla invented an electromechanical 'gear box' that
"locked into the inertial reference of the galaxy"-- the "Zero-Time Reference"--
without which you could be lost or re-materialize inside the steel decks of
the ship.

You should know that the term "Zero-Time Reference" is real--- it refers to
the master oscillator in a radar system, which synchronizes all the separate
pulse generators to one reference (like the "clock" oscillator does in a
computer). So Nichols takes a term from radar technology and inserts it into
his story, along with concepts from aircraft navigation systems. Do you see
how Preston is applying VOR phase-reference technology to an explanation of
the "Zero-Time Reference" in the PX/Montauk stories? For more info, including
claims that the Global Positioning (GPS) navigation system is an offshoot of
these ideas, see Bob Dratch's web page at
http://members.aol.com/BDelphin/contents.htm. (Dratch claims he invented a
GPS, known as "Tri-Nav", but that the idea was stolen from him and has now
become our well-known GPS system.)

So what else did I see at "Spacetime Labs"?

A 5-foot tall Tesla coil was stowed away in a corner. Shelves and shelves of
old tube radio receivers that Preston collects. All crammed into a tiny garage
that was partitioned into smaller rooms. Mostly an electronic tinkerer's
junkyard or dreamland, depending on your point of view.

The "high point" of the visit was when he sat me in a chair in front of an
audio system with a black box having unmarked switches on it. In the corners
behind me were amplified speakers. Preston told me that the chair I was in
was at the focal point of the system, which was a "mini-version of the Montauk
Chair". Would I like to experience it? "Of course!" I said.

He played a cassette of Swan Lake, followed by the Moody Blues' "Nights in
White Satin"-- I was supposed to relax and "flow" with the music while he
fiddled with a knob that seemed to be adding a small amount of
"filtered noise" to the music. I guessed that it was a "feedback" control but
he did not explain what it was when I asked. Nothing much happened, except
for a slight pressure/headache in my forehead after several minutes. Preston
said I was "resisting" the device's influence, and then it was over. Gee,
that's what they told me when I failed to speak in "tongues" at the
charismatic church services I attended in my younger years, too! That I would
never have an "experience" as long as I kept resisting the Holy Spirit.
That I was too logical/analytical. Imagine that! My being "logical" thwarted
the Omnipotent God of the Universe from being able to "touch" my soul.
Oh well, I guess the good Lord really messed up in giving humans the ability
to think, reason, and ask honest questions, much less possess a degree of
healthy skepticism.

So what do I think about all of this 8 years later? The same thing that I
think about the "Philadelphia Experiment": I don't see any evidence that
what Preston said happened, happened. However, as an electronics tech and
alt-sci buff, I can certainly believe in the possibility that these wild
technologies COULD be true. So I keep an eye out for any techno-hints that
might add some of the missing pieces to the puzzle. I asked Preston to publish
some specific technical details that an engineer could evaluate. His response
was that the public would not understand all the techno-talk; better to
concentrate on the sizzle (my paraphrase). I also requested the same technical
proof from Al Bielek in 1992; he said a book was forthcoming with all the
details. No such book has ever appeared as far as I know. (Does "sensational
book sales" seem to be the motivating factor here? Or pursuit of the Truth,
which can ONLY come from getting some real details of the technology
allegedly used?)

So neither Preston nor Al would tell me anything of any substance, although
Preston was very cordial to me when I visited his "lab". And I suspect
it's because they don't know any real technical details, because they're
making this up, or are deluding themselves. As I've said before, it should be
no problem for them to give us some specific details that another RF engineer
could understand. But instead they choose to write metaphysical "X-Files"
-type books that appeal to the New Age crowd. (Sorry if I've offended anyone,
but that's how I see it.)

If you demand the "Truth", or proof of what he is saying, Preston answers
that he doesn't NEED to prove anything, and, besides, if it doesn't agree
with YOUR reality, then so be it-- a common cop-out among the metaphysical
crowd. "What's true for you may not be true for me", etc. Truth is "relative".
"There are no absolutes, anyhow". To that remark I often like to reply,
"Are you ABSOLUTELY sure of that?"...

Here's a thought: How about if I were to pour a cup of boiling water over his
head--- would he just deny the reality of the pain that I'm pretty sure he
would feel? Isn't it obvious that we MUST share a common "reality", or else
all communication breaks down? Why didn't the victims of every awful airliner
crash just "will" themselves out of "that" reality before the plane hit the
ground?

So nobody wants to level with us. They ask us to believe their fantastic
conspiracy stories, but when our questions get too specific, they hide behind
neo-occult psycho-babble. On the other hand, I've gotten unsolicited
correspondence from an RF engineer who studied the little that Bielek
did tell us, technically-speaking, and explained in detail why his description
of the equipment used on the U.S.S. Eldridge is a lot of hooey. I plan to
post that at my Web page soon.

(See the 'Philadelphia Exp' area at my page,
http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/pxmenu.htm, for other articles I've
written about the Philly Experiment.)

Thanks for letting me babble a bit. I hope my experiences shed some light on
things, even if only a little.
--Rick

I also found this hand drawn map of Camp Hero prior to demolition of most of the buildings, which is pretty neat. No idea where this came from either, it was dated 8/21/99

[DOC]

I HAVE THE SAME INFO PRINTED OUT FROM LIKE THE YEAR 2000 OR 2001. WAS GOOD READING ONE NIGHT UPSTATE IN A ROOMY CAMPER EARLY FALL.