Recovered Piece Of UFO! Is This Irrefutable Evidence Of Alien Presence?, page 17
Pages: <<  14    15    16    17    18    19  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 90 times


reply posted on 17-1-2008 @ 02:36 PM by Crakeur
reply to post by b309302



If dating the object is not very costly we might consider it. for no reason other than to put this issue to rest. I agree that it is upsetting that we now have inconclusive results with the implication that this object is nothing more than an earth odditiy, like Michael Jackson (minus the pedo accusations).


reply posted on 17-1-2008 @ 02:37 PM by Springer
reply to post by Crakeur




I don't think we are in a position to definitely say what this thing is yet. I am waiting to find out how much it would cost to get a certain date of manufacture for the object. THAT could tell us much.

I am opposed to spending more money (we've spent thousands already) in getting an isotope ratio test done when there is conclusive evidence this was manufactured on Earth in the report we will have up shortly.

What would be incredible would be to discover it was manufactured several hundred thousand years ago or something like that.

I, like Larry, am confused as to why there hasn't been more of these things popping up and why nobody can replicate this thing easily if it's so mundane.

At the end of the day, I have to be a good steward of our company and when a completely neutral, third party expert tells me it's a waste of money to pursue further tests, and tells me why he believes that, I have to go with it.

BUT, if the dating test is inexpensive we might consider it.

We have been asked to remove the Doctor's name from the public version for obvious reasons and we will honor that request.

We will however, on an individual basis, reveal who he is to certain members we know will not harass him or inundate him with emails so there will be no doubt as to his qualifications to write the report he wrote.

I have to say I was truly hoping we had something here but we are pretty much right where we started only a couple thousand lighter in the wallet.

Maybe, after we get the other resource demanding projects up and running, we will be able to revisit this and we'll get to the bottom of it. In any case, when you combine the eye witness account with the lack of other samples coming forward this is still a very weird object.

Springer...


[edit on 1-17-2008 by Springer]


reply posted on 17-1-2008 @ 02:49 PM by Springer
reply to post by Crakeur



That's cause you're the bean counter.

Springer...


reply posted on 17-1-2008 @ 05:34 PM by Springer
reply to post by larryroyc



I'm with you on the "produce one" part...

Let's see what the costs of the age test are and go from there.

Interestingly, the report (which we will have up in the morning) doesn't point to the elemental tests to reach the conclusions.

The isotope tests that have been done are what he uses to reach his conclusions. In any case, I would like you to read the report tomorrow, mull it over, and get back to me with your opinion and observations.

Thanks...

Springer...


reply posted on 17-1-2008 @ 09:08 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by Springer



Now, now Beancounters and C.O.O.'s shouldn't air their dirty laundry in front of the Kiddies

It will sure be interesting to see the report I'm very impressed by the effort you put forth.


reply posted on 18-1-2008 @ 11:54 AM by WitnessFromAfar
Springer,
First and foremost, thank you and your metallurgist friend for the analysis. Nothing pleases me more than to see these cases taken seriously.

Questions for the Researcher:
I am in no way an expert on this, but after reading your analysis, I have a few questions:

1) Could we acquire a definition for the term:
'Low Quality Processing'
You've used this term several times, but never defined it. Are you talking about the manufacturing of the object? What other sort of 'processing' could have been performed on the object? What makes it 'low' quality, and what would make it 'high' quality? What is the distinction?

2) The 'lack of Tin' issue doesn't seem to be brought up in your analysis. Is there Tin in the composition of the metal? If not, how is this explained as a product of terrestrial manufacturing, when Tin is found to be present in (Earth Based) terrestrial manufacturing?

~EDIT~
Just saw at the bottom of the second composition chart the Tin specs:
Tin, Sn (%)0----<= 0.150<= 0.300<= 0.150<= 0.350<= 0.150<= 0.150
These are relatively low percentages compared with the other metals found in the object. Does anyone know how this compares to the ratio of tin found in common manufactured Aluminum Alloys?
~END EDIT~

3) Trying to understand the rationale here:
The lack of Cosmic Radiation induced Isotopes found in the metal suggest that the Object was manufactured within Earth's atmosphere...

-Does it have to be Earth's atmo? Seems to me that ANY planet with an atmosphere even remotely similar to our own would similarly protect against cosmic radiation...

-Also, would these Isotopes not be erradicated by a secondary process of superheating (after manufacture)? For example, say the Object WAS made in space, it would reveal the Isotopes showing the influence of Cosmic Radiation after manufacture. But then superheat that same object to the point that the composition metal begins to melt, (high velocity re-entry? contact with a superheated source like a theoretical spaceship engine?) and then rapid cool the object (by rapid travel through the lower atmosphere?) allowing the metal to reform into the tear-drop shape...
Would we still expect these Isotopes to be apparent after such exposure?

These are just the first questions that entered my mind after reading the report. Anyone with expertise on these issues that could help me understand the answers to these questions? Just trying to make sure I understand everything properly. If the researcher would care to comment, I'm sure we would all love to hear it! He/She would be anonymous here in the ATS forum, or could communicate through Springer?




[edit on 18-1-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]



reply posted on 18-1-2008 @ 01:32 PM by senshido
magnesium

magnesium

magnesium

magnesium

magnesium


get your magnesium!!

Wouldn't it bee funny if it were the quivalent of our blue ice!

[edit on 18-1-2008 by senshido]

[edit on 18-1-2008 by senshido]


reply posted on 18-1-2008 @ 10:23 PM by Hal9000
reply to post by MountainStar


Those are pretty neat, but if you notice the sizes are very small compared to Bob's object and they are made of glass. I looked into this a little and none of them were made of aluminum.

You know another thing that wasn't mentioned in the report was the neutron emissions or the dental x-ray film exposures. I don't know anything about this, but that sounds uncommon to me.

Springer, did the metallurgist review that information?

And Blaine I agree, even though the material of the object may have come from Earth, it is still a mystery in my eyes. Like Larry says, until you can find another object like it, it is hard to write it off.


reply posted on 18-1-2008 @ 11:46 PM by FireMoon
Dont know how many of you have seen this but i'd like to get poeples thoughts on it... www.youtube.com...

PS Its worth watching all five parts of the video, oh, and not just cos Jane is slightly easier on the eye than the usual researchers, to those hetro males here

[edit on 19-1-2008 by FireMoon]
Pages: <<  14    15    16    17    18    19  >>    ^^TOP^^



Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 18 days ago with 276 member flags
Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 14 days ago with 122 member flags
Was this the real reason why Megaupload was closed down?
  Posted 19 days ago with 96 member flags
The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 17 days ago with 85 member flags
Denver Airport Allows Camera Crew in Underground Facility
  Posted 16 days ago with 83 member flags