It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Recovered Piece Of UFO! Is This Irrefutable Evidence Of Alien Presence?

page: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 02:36 PM
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).

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 02:37 PM
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.


[edit on 1-17-2008 by Springer]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Springer
I am opposed to spending more money

not as opposed to it as I am

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by Crakeur

That's cause you're the bean counter.


posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 02:53 PM
Ooh, I was going to bet that the results would be "inconclusive!" They always are. What you generally get from any UFO samples is something like, "an unusual combination of elements, but nothing to clearly indicate an extraterrestrial source."

Well, I guess you have to look anyway. As for dating it, since it's not organic I would imagine you'd have to do something particularly tricky with it.

Yes, this always happens. Oh, well.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:54 PM
Crakeur said,

Stanton Friedman isn't reviewing the report. Springer and I are reviewing it. It's a metalurgists report on the various findings. He was going to give us his take on whether or not we should bother going forward with additional testing

Yeah, I know that Crakeur. Mike sent Stanton the link to this thread to read. I just figured he wouldn't have time to read the whole thread, with his books and all.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:15 PM
reply to post by MountainStar

Sorry, I misunderstood your post.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:56 PM
appriciate your efforts mark...pretty much figured that would be the conclusions.

the basic elemental tests he reviewed would end up with exactly what he sent you as results..i think i mentioned that already.

with out the proper tests done the answer will never be known.

again we appriciate you efforts. we will continue ours.

my question will be the same..if this is so easy to produce,

produce me one to see or show me one from some casting plant.


posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:34 PM
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.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:33 PM
the isotope tests may not have been done..

we have taped conversations with both paul dunn and dr risweig contradicting the report..

one said there where tests said there werent so thats not any good either.

the isotope tests IF DONE where done on silcon.
that number will be the same no matter where it is from..a grain of sand or the chip in your computor or moon dust will always be the same.. 28 29 30

the results of all of our tests where posted and have been. any scientist can read results of some other ones work and he will be in aggreement with what the paper says..

what a seeker of the absolute truth needs is a scientist who will do the proper tests to deteremine the origin of the material in question...

as far as a time was made in 1985 over the skies of colorado..

thats where it came from as the eye witness has stated..

ive been dealing with this for 11 years mark..its easy for someone to interpret standard basic testing and their conclusions will follow their book of knowns..when your dealing with the unknown you pretty much throw the book away and start over..

what tests did he determine should be done if other tests where performed??

i know what other tests should be done and there are more than 8 that can prove extraterrestrial origins..


[edit on 17-1-2008 by larryroyc]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:36 PM
Well this news is disappointing, but I will still look forward to the report.

I think that with you guys showing interest in this case and shelling out a few bucks speaks volumes. Anyone who thinks this place is all about the commercial aspect of the site should know what you've done here.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:08 PM
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.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:33 AM
Here it is... Sorry about the delay but the non public disclosure of his name and company contact information was a bit more complicated than we though it would be.

Metallurgist's Report to The Above Network, LLC on "The Bob White Object":


posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:43 AM
Thank-you Springer.

It's gonna take awhile to absorb all this.

This kind of investigations is what makes the ATS
the Best!

Sure appreciate all your efforts.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:54 AM
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?

Just saw at the bottom of the second composition chart the Tin specs:
Tin, Sn (%)0----

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:32 PM





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]

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 02:46 PM
Quote from Report,

However, teardrop-shaped tektites are produced from Earth's material due to the interaction with a meteorite upon impact.

According to the website below tektites can be atleast 700,000 years old.

Photo image is from above website.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:49 PM
I don't see its being an Earthly Construct as being any less interesting. If what was seen was a Military Craft and this is a piece of residue it still has me interested. This would indicate we have some interesting advances in aircraft to look forward too as these objects are revealed.

Thanks for the information and the effort.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:23 PM
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.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:46 PM
Dont know how many of you have seen this but i'd like to get poeples thoughts on it...

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]

new topics

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in