The Navy Once Tested ‘Invisible’ Ships. Now, One Man Sits at the Center of the ‘Philadelphia Experiment’ Conspiracy. 21%

By Darren Orf56%

7/30/2026, 6:30:04 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Confirmation Bias, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 45.2% saturation with 327 hits. Analysis detected 1,159 faulty-reasoning hits from 724 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.4% and a BS Rank of 21% (21,181 of 26,529 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.80% of the article peer group.

Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story:The Philadelphia Experiment is one of the strangest military conspiracy theories, and even inspired a 1984 film based on its grandiose claims of invisibility and time travel.The theory involves the USS Eldridge—a U.S. destroyer escort that, in the late summer of 1943, allegedly teleported from the Philadelphia Naval Yards to Norfolk, Virginia.Although thoroughly debunked by the U.S. 
Navy and other experts, the “experiment” remains remarkably persistent, in part due to its immense specificity.It’s the late summer of 1943, and the world is at war.With the myth of Japanese naval dominance smashed at Midway the previous summer and Nazi Germany's advance halted at Stalingrad that winter, Allied forces were firmly on the offensive. 
In the midst of this paroxysm of military activity, one of the strangest urban legends in history began to gather steam. 
This conspiracy theory wasn’t born from secretive murmurings about a doomsday weapon being constructed in New Mexico or submarines that silently plied the depths of enemy waters. 
No, this myth involved a relatively unassuming Cannon-class destroyer escort, one of the more than 500 destroyer escorts constructed during the war.The story goes like this. 
Late in the summer of 1943, the USS Eldridge was drydocked at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. 
Supposedly outfitted with a new kind of a technology, an eerie green glow surrounded the ship, and it disappeared—not just from radar, but completely. 
Hours later, reports from the crew of the civilian merchant ship SS Andrew Furuseth began to narrate sightings of the Eldridge at the Naval Operating Base in Norfolk, Virginia. 
Crewmembers were reportedly disfigured in this horrendous teleportation and time travel experiment, and—so the story goes—the U.S. military has kept this incident classified for decades.Containing secret wartime experiments, a disappearing ship, and time travel, this persistent urban legend has all the trappings of a Hollywood sci-fi film (which is probably why they made one about it 1984). 
But all of the “information” about this experiment comes from the mind of Carl Allen, whose ravings about Albert Einstein’s “unified field theory” eventually reached the desk of the Navy’s Office of Naval Research (ONR) some 15 years after the supposed “experiment.” 
These ravings came from the annotations of a UFO book written by amateur astronomer Morris Jessup, and for reasons never explained, ONR published more than 100 copies of this book—annotations included—planting the seeds of the “Philadelphia Experiment” conspiracy.The U.S. 
Navy has provided detailed movements of the USS Eldridge (as well as the Andrew Furuseth), along with descriptions of an in-depth search of documents regarding experiments related to invisibility or time travel. 
Needless to say, Allen’s assertions don’t quite add up. 
One piece of evidence offered up in favor of the “experiment” claim is that the ship was outfitted with a new kind of technology—a device designed to scramble magnetic signatures in a process called “degaussing.” 
While this caused invisibility of a sort, it wasn’t the stuff dreamed up in Allen’s musings.“ 
Degaussing equipment was installed in the hull of Navy ships and could be turned on whenever the ship was in waters that might contain magnetic mines, usually shallow waters in combat areas,” the Naval History and Heritage Command wrote in a post. 
“It could be said that degaussing, correctly done, makes a ship ‘invisible’ to the sensors of magnetic mines, but the ship remains visible to the human eye, radar, and underwater listening devices.” 
Despite being thoroughly debunked, the urban myth of the Philadelphia Experiment remains, and one expert who studied the hoax believes its lasting power might rely on its incredible specificity.“ 
Vague stories about merely curious or unusual happenings naturally fail to hold an audience’s interest for very long,” French author Jacques Vallée wrote in his paper “Anatomy of a Hoax: The Philadelphia Experiment Fifty Years Later” in 1994. 
“Thus for a hoax to reach mythic proportions, as the Philadelphia Experiment does, it must be truly amazing by the boldness of its claims, and it must have a well-defined localization in time and space.” 
In the end, the lasting legacy of the Philadelphia Experiment might have less to do with its exaggerated claims of secretive time travel technology, and more to do with the mysterious inner workings of the human mind. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.9%Darren Orf: 4.4%Popular Mechanics: 3.8%Confirmation Bias14.9%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Darren Orf: 4.1%Popular Mechanics: 2.5%Availability Heuristic4.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 2.4%Popular Mechanics: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 2.5%Popular Mechanics: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Darren Orf: 4.1%Popular Mechanics: 2.9%Framing Effect11.2%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.0%Darren Orf: 0.9%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 3.4%Popular Mechanics: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Darren Orf: 1.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.0%Pessimism Bias1.2%This article: 7.9%Darren Orf: 5.7%Popular Mechanics: 4.3%Negativity Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error5.1%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.9%Popular Mechanics: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Darren Orf: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Ad Hominem5.8%This article: 3.7%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Straw Man3.7%This article: 5.4%Darren Orf: 7.0%Popular Mechanics: 4.5%Appeal to Authority5.4%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 4.1%Popular Mechanics: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.9%Darren Orf: 3.6%Popular Mechanics: 2.8%Appeal to Emotion7.9%This article: 4.8%Darren Orf: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.7%Begging the Question4.8%This article: 10.5%Darren Orf: 3.4%Popular Mechanics: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.5%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.2%Darren Orf: 3.2%Popular Mechanics: 2.1%Anecdotal15.2%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.2%Darren Orf: 2.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.2%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 5.8%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy5.8%This article: 5.2%Darren Orf: 2.5%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%Unattributed Quote5.2%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 45.2%Darren Orf: 7.9%Popular Mechanics: 4.7%Biased Writer Voice45.2%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 2.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

724 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers20%attributed speech577writer words
Selected voice

Jacques Vallée

100%flagged-word coverage
73 attributed words50% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-56.7 ptsWriter: 56.7%Jacques Vallée: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+52.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jacques Vallée: 52.1%52.1%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.