Wikitalk for and on Montauk

Wikitalk....as can be seen, is not all together unlike goo goo ga ga baby talk.  

 

Copied here in full is the web page Wikipedians AKA> pediaphiles, know as "the talk page". After all, pediaphiles are to words, language, facts and the collective culture at large just as pedophiles are to children. Talk pages are where wikipedians conduct a virtual conversation that is not really a genuine conversation but is a series of people stating claims generally without basis other than because they say so. Occasionally one will see/find an occasional person/editor weighing in with an attempt to bring some common sense and critical thinking to bear, but try not to mind that too much. These rare people are generally shouted down in short order, often by way of wiki gangs, admin gangs at that, and if that does not quiet them sufficiently, they are eventually banned from further input into the Wikipedia process.

It is worth pointing out some of the behind the scenes activity going into what people on the front side recognize as Wikipedia. There are elevated people, generally contributing to the hierarchy of authority, and within this hierarchy is found a range of "admins", pediaphiles given status generally elevated above what is allowed for the average web flunky who might wonder into and onto the wiki site off the virutal street. It has been fairly well documented that the best way for newcomers to climb this ladder so as to reach admin land is by starting off paying attention to the documented wiki rules and diligently abiding by them at least until one has time to figure out who some of the existing admins are, kiss their butt, form alliances, after which, if one is real good, they too get elevated to admin status. Admins are free to edit and restrict the flow of information and production of content. They are generally permitted to behave contrary, with impunity, regarding wiki's officially stated policies on the creation and maintenance of content. admin-caliber people at wiki are by and large children, from around the globe, both literally in many cases, and at least figuratively in other cases, roughly between the ages of 12 and 20. Children at large, especially those still in the grade-school years as well as those recently graduated from there, are fairly well known to state unfounded assertions mainly because they have not yet become mature enough to know how and understand why it is important to make claims that have some basis in verifiable proof other than "because I say so". Some children will bang their fists on height chairs. Others will resort to all manner of brat-like behavior. Some even include name-calling among their tactics in decreeing their claims. Such are the travails and corresponding vagaries that come with the territory of dealing with unruly children who have not yet learned how and why it is important to grow up. The attached copy of the wikitalk page on Montauk Project is a good showcase of these kinds of goings on. It may be important to keep the foregoing in mind the next time anyone gets the idea to think of Wikipedia collectively as genuinely representative of truthful information tirelessly researched and faithfully presented in the traditional form of a legitimate encyclopedia that has well earned high respect and reputation.
--------

 

Talk:Montauk Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	United States portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Paranormal portal 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 article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
[show]Additional information and associated task forces:   This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Montauk Project article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents [hide] 1 Montauk Book 2 Jersey Devil 3 The Movie Stripes 4 Miscellaneous comments 5 "hoax"? 6 What just happened here? 7 Scientology 8 Coast To Coast AM and / or Jeff Rense 9 {{mil-spec}} 10 Please don't change it 11 Removal of Black Projects banner 12 Sounds like stargate 13 Ominous powerline 14 Remove direct link in the Project Stargate 15 Broken link 16 Uh, what? 17 One word / acronym: CSETI 18 Exposed Brain Syndrome?

//

[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 aren't real claims and need to be removed. Thats not true, they're factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.221.197 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[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 f***ing 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. Except that this image captured by CNN indicates he has some involvement with "them," whomever they happen to actually be. --Chr.K. 06:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[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. Coyoty 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? Coyoty 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) :)

Just out of curiosity, were one really "mindwiped," how would one know???96.234.19.92 05:17, 15 November 2007 (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. Coyoty 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 BS. 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)

[edit] Uh, what?

This article is far fetched, yes, but can be supported. It mentions that there is no proof of an underground base, while I have seen video footage of it. Being new to wikipedia, what constitues as fair proof? There's masses of media examples out there to support at least parts of these claims. It seems to me that when people say something looks like it fits into what one would call a Conspiracy Theory, we have carte blanche to pretend it doesn't exist and laugh about it. There are hours and hours of lectures from prominant reserchers, yet where are the cititions from there? I don't want to cause trouble, but I feel I must say something about this. Kuasta 10:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's generally accepted that there could be underground facilities and tunnels on the military property. Many military sites are extended underground or into mountains, especially cold war era bases. What's questionable is any kind of paranormal research having taken place. --NEMT 01:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One word / acronym: CSETI

The hoaxers and the usual zombie-stooges and their handlers need to realise something:

the Disclosure Project is real.

Mind-control experimentation by government agencies is an admitted to and proven fact.

Whether or not Montauk AFB was ever involved in such things is irrelevent, because all the objections to it so being are all based around the assumption that it is possible to make a statement of fact that relies on that fact being backed up by the belief that - there's no such thing as secret alien technology, and there's no such thing as mind-control.

But there are of course such things! And again, it doesn't matter if "alien" turns out to actually mean "people from the future" or some such.

The worst mind-control of all is the one that programs people to believe it's ok to lie about technology and how the universe works, and what the universe is. Try questioning why, if you do such things, why you take that side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.96.9 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

uhm.. citation please?--98.243.129.181 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exposed Brain Syndrome?

these "fortunate" few developed adequate neural immunities to live despite the obvious complications of exposed brain syndrome (EBS)

This is such a funny phrase that I almost don't want to mention that there appears to be no such thing as "exposed brain syndrome". At least it isn't mentioned at all in Medline and only once on Google (in--you guessed it--the Wikipedia article on the Montauk Project). I'd edit it out, but I just don't know where to begin with this article. --Otterfan (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 

Tweet