Talk:Montauk Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Montauk Project article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Montauk Book

A lot of the things in the claim section are directly from the Montauk Book wiki entry by Preston B. Nichols this book is fiction so those arnt real claims and need to be removed.

[edit] Jersey Devil

i removed the claim that Bioengineering projects undertaken there eventually created the Jersey Devil as this has no citation on where this "claim" is made or who made it. wikipedia lists the jersey devil legend going back as far as the 1700's and has citations for jersey devil reports in the 1800s so it predates montauk.

[edit] The Movie Stripes

I have removed the claim that the bill murrey comedy movie was filmed at montauk. there is no citation for it and the stripes page on wikipedia says the movie was filmed at fort knox. even if these are outlandish claims you cant just go around adding every rumor you hear. you need to have a ciation for everything on here. you need to put a little number and a link or citation in the biblio portion saying this author says this in this book, or this website said that or this guy said this in a taped interview on this channel on this date. alot of this page is pretty cool stuff but it looks like over time people have just randomyl added claims they thought would fit without CITATIONS!@!!@!@!@ come on people. crikey.

[edit] Miscellaneous comments

A "porthole in time" was created which allowed researchers to travel anywhere in time or space. This was developed into a stable "Time Tunnel". - ha ha ha ha ha. Yeah of course it was. If conspiracy theorists weren't so fucking insane I might believe them occassionally. (82.44.79.192 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

Question: is a list of crackpots who claim that they have been involved in the Montauk Project really notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia? Especially when one of them has no article and another one is on VfD. - Mike Rosoft 15:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it is worthy of inclusion. There are published books on the Montauk Project on the shelves at my local public library and at some large bookstores. This article is a stub at this point, and should be noted as such. "Crackpot" is perhaps a fair criticsm of the people involved with this subject, but that would only make this article a neutral discussion of crackpots. ("Crackpottery" is not a widely recognized reason to remove an article; the standard for that is "patent nonsense", which this is not.) Vadder 19:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The name "Montauk Project" might be worthy of inclusion, but surely Wikipedia shouldn't ever have factual statements about time tunnels to anywhere in time or space? Wouldn't it be better to rewrite this article from the point of view that there's no evidence of anything other than a normal run-of-the-mill military base being there?


The accounts of the "Montauk Project" sound like something out of the Weekly World News. LOL! 209.92.89.26 20:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to pile on to the moonbats, I grew up on Long Island and my family went to Montauk frequently. This suposedly top secret radar station was in plain view from a few locations. If I dug through my Mom's old photos, I might even find a picture of it.

Not exactly the Area 51, if you can pass right by it on the road.

AMcalabrese

THIS IS CLEARLY PATENT NONSENSE

Though I will not dispute its validity, I think stating the accusations about the "Project" as fact is something that needs to be altered. It states that scientists in a super secret and perhaps massively underground lab created a time portal, which an alien monster traveled though but was luckily destroyed. Perhaps it should be merged with this article instead. The0208 06:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I echo the prior commentors. On first reading, I was taken aback by the USS Eldridge and its supposed cloaking abilities, or whatever the heck happened. The article reads, even with the disclaimer, as unabashed fact. It may need some cleaning up to read "Rumors regarding the project include..." or "Allegations regarding the Montauk Project include...". Other than that, this is almost so laughable it is graffiti.

I don't think you even need to include allegations if they have no supporting evidence or wide following. I could make the allegation that George W. Bush is a bug-eyed alien from Venus, but that doesn't mean it would be worthy of inclusion in an article about him.

[edit] "hoax"?

The article states that "This account has been criticized as highly speculative and unfounded, and is widely regarded as a hoax". Is hoax really the right word to use? Hoax to me would mean a purposefully made up story, rather than an urban legend or conspiracy theory that are usually believed by those who perpetrate them. --Krsont 12:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It was pointed out in Talk:Philadelphia Experiment that the authors of one of the books on which this and the Philadelphia Experiment precepts are based, Thin Air, have admitted that it was fiction. This leaves key figures who claim to have personally met the now-fictional characters from the book with some 'splaining to do. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 16:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Quite. That said "hoax" is probably the wrong word. Michael Craft's Alien Impact has a chapter on a workshop he attended which was run by the three main protagonists and when you get the story of how they came to realise they had been involved it is a lot more... nebulous. Tracing it through - Berlitz based his book on a work of fiction was was partly based on the delusions of someone who was in and out of mental institutions. At least some of these guys appear to genuinely believe this happened to them - this doesn't mean it did but if it didn't that needn't make them hoaxers. Perhaps "This account has been criticized as highly speculative and unfounded. Some parts are based on accounts now widely accepted as fiction and the entire is supported only by anecodal evidence" Something like that. Although that may be bordering on a non-NPOV it does need to be flagged. (Emperor 01:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] What just happened here?

This article has just been rewritten to be about a particular book series, and not about the Montauk Project in general. That seems like rewriting the article about the Bermuda Triangle into one about just one book about the Bermuda Triangle. Why shouldn't this rewrite be reverted back to the general article? Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 16:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Specifically it needs to go back to just before Americasroof's massive series of edits on April the 4th [1] as it suddenly switches from a general discussion not just of a series of books but the first one in the series - this is pretty weird. It also went from providing an outline with disclaimers to calling it science fiction and people putting it forward as a cult. Not only do I think this violates the NPOV but is bordering on the libelous (and I am, shall we say, unconvinced that their accounts are purely factual). Although I think this needs reverting to the edit point I link to above tThere is material that can be resued. I'd suggest moving the book information to the end and adding others in. The X-Files and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind could be put in a "Montauk in the Media" section. The entry also needs to be watched for further editting sprees. (Emperor 00:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC))
Ok, I just plit the article into the military project and the book thing that it had become. Montauk Project (book) leads to the new page. TomStar81 00:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Good stuff - I've moved the Montauk in the media section back here and have started a discussion over there about further tidying iy up so it is focused on the book. (Emperor 17:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Scientology

Anyone know what the Scientology connection is? The most recent book, The Montauk Book Of The Dead (ISBN 0967816238), is just by Peter Moon and basically covers L. Ron Hubbard and then moves on to Montauk. It is only the first part and a sequel is due this year but I'm wondering if anyone has anymore information - I'm not sure why but my Spidey senses tell me this is somehow significant (or not) (Emperor 01:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

Its quite interesting - Peter Moon (a psuedonym?) is/was a high up Scientologist and confidante of L. Ron Hubbard and this winds in and out of the Scientology mythos. Moon claims to have left Scientology and has spent his intervening years releasing books like this and the more openly acknowledge fictional truth around Ong's Hat (that entry also needs a tidy up - check out the talk page) in Ong's Hat: The Beginning and also has connections with the Jack Parsons story which links back to Hubbard [2] and the Montauk Project Center [3] provides furth informaiton (ISBN 096781622X) (Emperor 18:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC))
- reply -

The Encyclopaedia of Alien Encounters (ISBN:1-85227-734-3) has its own account of the Montauk Project, probably a summary of content from the books referenced in the WP entry. It states that the book Montauk Revisited describes an experiment in 1946 by the rocket scientist John Whiteside "Jack" Parsons and L Ron Hubbard. It gives a few details, but it's probably best to look to the source reference.

[edit] Coast To Coast AM and / or Jeff Rense

Both shows have featured personnel who have stated that they have worked in this matter. One man claimed he was "mindwiped" by aliens, and this was claimed to be related to the Philadelphia Experiment. Martial Law 19:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] {{mil-spec}}

Where is the {{mil-spec}} template located? It needs spellchecking. Also, I'm not sure it should be used here because it contradicts statements in the article about verifiabity. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 18:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Click here and you should go right to it, although I am considering put that up for deletion. I thought it to be a good idea at the time, but now I am having second thoughts. TomStar81 03:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Persuant to request - done. Martial Law 00:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Request misidentified. Apologise for that. Martial Law 01:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Spelling is O.K. Hope this helps. Cheers. Martial Law 01:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't change it

I believe this article should be kept as a reference point to anyone who tries to cite Wikipedia as their only source of information. This article is a perfect example of how the internet basically allows anyone with any opinion (useless and unfounded or not) to spill their garbage onto the rest of us. Personally I think the whole article is bloody hilarious... somewhat depressing that someone might believe it... but very funny.

I am going to cite this article. Everything that happened is true! My father worked on the experiment. Of course, it was covered up by the government, who were then being run by extraterrestials. I have even seen a picture of the alien monster who destroyed part of the base. Rintrah 03:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
rintrah, the majority of the interviews havebrought to light that (if this even occurred) it was not an alien, but a being made of energy which they ended up calling "Jr." myproblem with the montauk project conspiracy theory, as it stands, is that it is held together VERY loosely by the lies of a confused old man. Bielek is bullshit. The only truth of montauk is that it existed as a military facility and that SOME of the people who worked there have gone loony, and many more people who didn't work there have said they did and turned out to be lying.
honestly, if you're dad says he worked there, stop feeding him lead, he's already gone. 69.148.116.209 21:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not true! I'm going to cry. Waaaaaaaa. You wouldn't know because your daddy never worked there. Rintrah 03:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Black Projects banner

The banner at the top of the page uses the phrase "This article deals with a topic reported by reliable sources as a military black project." This clearly isn't true, does anyone have any objection if I remove the banner?

If there's a template that says something along the lines of "This articel is about an urban legend which is strongly rejected by most all mainstream research" then this page is about made for it. However the BP banner was questionable here. 68.39.174.238 05:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
See RE.: '''{{Mil-Spec}}''' above.

Another editor feels that there is some kind of conflict in the article. Martial Law 00:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My reason for placing it (the template)in the Montauk Project article, is that it was featured on the radio show Coast To Coast AM and on Jeff Rense's radio show and website. People interviewed by these radio show hosts stated that they have worked in this project, and that they have seen some really bizarre things, such as a Bigfoot-like creature. The other editor's concern was a coincidence. Martial Law 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Coast To Coast AM and Jeff Rense are not worth anything as sources.Geni 16:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
They qualify as "alternative media", since they claim that the "mainstream media" will not deal with paranormal matters, definately will not deal with UFOs, aliens as persuant to the protocols contained in the Robertson Panel, one section dealing with how the media is to deal with UFOs, aliens. Martial Law 22:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I've heard how this article's subject matter was connected to UFOs, aliens, even Bigfoot on these two shows myself. Martial Law 22:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
most of the media on this planet isn't going to care to much about what the CIA wants.Geni 02:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, I not gonna fight for the inclusion of the black project template, but I do feel that the article does come under the category of "black projects", albeit abtusely. Perhaps we could maybe keep that category in the article and just lose the template? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • P.S.: I created an urban legend template for use in article that deal with urban legends. Thaoiught it might help some ;-) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds like stargate

Is it just me or does this article remind anyone else of the sci fi channels "Stargate" shows? contacting extra-terrestials thru a "time tunnel" and getting new tech. Don't forget the last one there about atlantis which follows the stargate story perfectly. Makes me wonder if stargate wasn't influenced by the myth or vice versa. 64.149.178.252 13:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Travelling through space portals and accessing alien technology is a sci fi cliché. I don't think either borrowed from the other. Rintrah 11:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ominous powerline

There are some stories about an overhead powerline near Montauk, about which the power company of Montauk may not give any information and which ends at a little cabinet. The only thing which is known about this powerline is that is high loaded, as that there would be a consumption as a of a big city. Unfortunately there are no pictures of this powerline available. It would be very interesting to show some pictures of the transmission towers and the small cabinet, where this line should end at the internet.

I demand more information on this subject. Vegetaman 10:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Why? You want a mundane explanation? It is more interesting as a mystery of a reputedly paranormal phenonemon. Rintrah 10:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
there should be more information a mundane explaination would be good cause it would get rid of some of this useless junk on this page. everything on this page, even if it is from a conspiracy book or something, should have a citation especially since this topic is so out there.
how is there no photo of this? 87.113.82.36 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
To state that a powerline would be so highly loaded in that it supplies a big city, well, go to your nearest handy big city and track down the main incomers and switching yards. Ask the power people where it is. Go and take a good hard look at that. That, you dunce, is what it takes to power a big city. I defy you to terminate that lot into a 'little cabinet'. Or even a rather large cabinet, for that matter. Anyway, this is all irrelevant. I've been there and there are no 'high loaded' powerlines going into no little cabinets.202.5.177.162 15:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove direct link in the Project Stargate

DoD declassified documents [acquired by Freedom of Information Act] have confirmed its existance so it couldn't be lumped in with a hypothetical program like the Montauk Project

I'm not sure how to say it but the Template Box inclusion of that may be leading to the believe that Project Stargate was a construct to flesh out the Conspiracy theories mentioned about Montauk 68.9.223.94 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link

The link to the article about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind leads to somethingelse entirely. Anyone know the original link, or will I have to do a history trawl? Also the paragraph mentions a series. What series? Totnesmartin 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/n/Talk%7EMontauk_Project_32b8.html"