Recovered Piece Of UFO! Is This Irrefutable Evidence Of Alien Presence?, page 18

privacy

Pages: << 15 16 17 18 19 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 90 times

reply posted on 19-1-2008 @ 08:26 AM by mikesingh

reply to post by Springer

Mark, thanks a million for having taken the trouble to get the object analyzed.

That's what separates the wheat from the chaff, the men from the boys, ATS from the rest!

Now let's see what the results are from the dating tests.

Cheers!

Mike.

reply posted on 19-1-2008 @ 08:41 AM by FireMoon

So the whole thing about this toitally normal object being able to expose an X Ray plate is...

A... Fake, it cant?

B... Of no scientific interest at all?

reply posted on 20-1-2008 @ 11:29 PM by BigNlow

reply to post by Springer

We are pleased ATS has been a part of the ongoing effort to identify the object Bob White recovered during his UFO encounter in Colorado. This journey has taken us to some of the most noteworthy labs in the world.

However, in this case we are disappointed that the scientist chosen to review preliminary tests remains unnamed as it was explained to us they would be on the record. This has been a pattern throughout our research, where fear over-rules true scientific method. Since no sample was actually tested here, one could safely assume “going public” would not be a risk.

Only the tips of the object have been tested at this time, leaving perhaps 90% of the object still unknown. We had hoped our suggestion of a “core” sample (among others) would have been accepted here as it is much cheaper than the “thousands” ATS has spent for a review of preliminary results.

Nonetheless, we have taken 2 important steps forward thanks to ATS:

1. The reductionist approach used by the scientist leaves unanswered questions, alerting readers to additional areas of research we are currently pursuing but cannot discuss at this time. We encourage each of you to pursue the obvious. Most of our publishable data is available to you in one form or another.

2. A prestigious scientist has cited the Los Alamos isotope tests as a reason no further tests are needed. This is exactly what we thought would happen and we are very grateful it did. Here is why;

We can and will prove conclusively (perhaps even sooner with a Congressional Hearing) that these isotope tests were never performed.

We encourage the readers to watch this History Channel presentation:
www.youtube.com...

And review this Petition for a Congressional Hearing:
www.ipetitions.com...

Sincerely,
UFO Hard Evidence Team

reply posted on 21-1-2008 @ 05:43 AM by tayga

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

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...

A perfectly valid question. You would expect that any similar atmosphere would provide similar protection. However, if you're talking about an origin outside our Solar System (there are no similar atmospheres within it) you'd have no idea of the typical elemental composition throughout that system. In other words, it's either from this Earth or from somewhere else outside our SS where manufacture and relative exposure to cosmic radiation have resulted in it having an elemental/isotopic composition similar to an object originating on Earth.

-Also, would these Isotopes not be erradicated by a secondary process of superheating (after manufacture)?

No. It's the stability of these isotopes to subsequent physical and chemical processes that makes them a reliable indicator of age or origin. Different isotopes arise from nuclear reactions only. Superheating would lead to chemical or physical changes that would not impact on the nuclear composition.

reply posted on 21-1-2008 @ 05:57 AM by tayga

Originally posted by FireMoon
So the whole thing about this toitally normal object being able to expose an X Ray plate is...

A... Fake, it cant?

B... Of no scientific interest at all?

Exactly. Where is the validation of the X-ray and EMF claims?

I'm still not convinced that analysis hasn't been based on the assumption that the composition of this object is the same throughout. Certainly the metallurgist comments on the grain structure and porosity of a section but aren't we talking about a sample from one end of the object?

Where is the justification for this?

Has it already been established that the object is of uniform composition? Sorry if I've missed it but I understood that the X-ray plate exposure led to an early impression that the object had a core/shell structure. Is this purely down to metallurgical differences? Has it been explained? Has anyone drilled into the middle of the object to obtain a sample?

Again, apologies if I've missed evidence that the object is homogeneous. But if it isn't then that fact is far more interesting than the analysis of the aluminium alloy's composition.

reply posted on 21-1-2008 @ 06:01 AM by ConspiracyNut23

Originally posted by BigNlow
However, in this case we are disappointed that the scientist chosen to review preliminary tests remains unnamed as it was explained to us they would be on the record.

This a tad disappointing, saying that "an anonymous" metallurgist found the object to be of terrestrial origin, will not carry much weight outside of ATS without the metallurgist's name and credential.

We can and will prove conclusively (perhaps even sooner with a Congressional Hearing) that these isotope tests were never performed.

Then, despite what the report says, (recommends no further testing) it is obvious that another isotope test has to be conducted. How much does it cost? How far is ATS willing to take this? (Btw, thanks for going this far, Springer got my WATS for that.

although I realize WATS are not cash

)

I think this is more important that determining the age of the object.

[edit on 21/1/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

reply posted on 21-1-2008 @ 08:54 AM by FireMoon

Originally posted by tayga

Originally posted by FireMoon
So the whole thing about this toitally normal object being able to expose an X Ray plate is...

A... Fake, it cant?

B... Of no scientific interest at all?

Exactly. Where is the validation of the X-ray and EMF claims?

I am asking for some validation of this myself...It is in the Jane Goldman video posrted in this thread on page 5 i believe and in its own thread under Jane Goldman Video

reply posted on 21-1-2008 @ 07:56 PM by Blaine91555

It would be interesting if we could be informed as to the price of additional testing. I'd think where the testing is concerned that money talks and I'd see no reason the party doing the testing would need to know any details. That would remove the fear factor I'd think. It would also seem to be the right way to go about it. I can see how this would get expensive in short order though.

reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 06:12 PM by Blaine91555

So, this is a dead issue now? Interesting ending.

reply posted on 7-2-2008 @ 01:10 AM by mikesingh

Originally posted by Blaine91555
So, this is a dead issue now? Interesting ending.

Heck! That's sad! What an anti-climax. I had hoped something would come out of this. So, is there anything more in the pipeline or has this issue been put to final rest?

reply posted on 7-2-2008 @ 03:03 AM by Trexter Ziam

If we're playing the guessing game, my guess is:

fossilized cycad cone - colorado - jurassic period - the age of cycads - paleobotanist is what you need.

reply posted on 7-2-2008 @ 05:45 AM by projectvxn

Originally posted by groingrinder
[color=Orange]I remember when Bob White was on "Judge Joe Brown" with his object and was treated with ridicule by all concerned. Joe Brown was not impressed one bit by the analysis done on the object. I am a believer in the extra terrestrial origins of the Bob White object even if Judge Joe Brown is not.[/color]

"Judge" Joe Brown is hardly an authority on anything, not even his own "courtroom", as the producers have the say on that anyhow.

reply posted on 9-2-2008 @ 08:12 PM by ragnarak

Heh I haven't seen this thread, but just saw it. I actually remember seeing this object in convention in Arkansas, I forget what age I was (Atleast 6 or so years ago perhaps? I don't know, was a bit ago). After the convention thing, I went into his little trailer that had a lot of display stuff in it and talked to him a little about it. I don't remember too much about it other than some things he showed us. I was pretty skeptical about it.

I remember only a few things he told me us about it, that when using some radio device, it could be used to extend/enhance the signal. Which obviously was because it was aluminum based. I am sure he knew it was aluminum based a while ago. I also remember he said some people felt different when holding it. I held it but didn't feel anything. Most likely the feeling they got was some kind of power of suggestion. I don't know.

That is about the majority that I remember. I still have a picture of the object itself that was signed by Bob White.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by ragnarak]

reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 09:24 AM by ziggy1706

I looked at his website... i think its a hoax... he is doing exactly the same thing, as george lutz and hte amittyville horror....make up a story, and cash in on it... EVERYTHING, outside of his video greeting, costs money...
the truth shold be free, and availiable for all.
To me, the 'object' in question, looks nothing more, than petrified wood...
i could be wrong too, but i don't buy it.

reply posted on 22-2-2008 @ 06:04 PM by waveguide3

After reading this fascinating case, it occured to me that another possibly corroborating report exits. I refer to the 1980s Rendlesham Forrest Incident which took place in Suffolk, England. I thought I remembered that it contained a reliable witness account of 'molten metal' emanating from a UFO.

The Rendlesham Forrest Incident is arguably the best documented UFO event in history, yet it remains completely unresolved. I took another look at the YouTube video series on this event and as I thought, there is indeed the molten metal reference. Unfortunately, little if anything was done about it. No artefact similar to the Bob White object was recovered, but the similarities seem tantalising to say the least.

You can find this reference around 8min40secs into Part 2 of the series. It's given Lt.Col. Charles Holt, Deputy Base Commander.

Here's the link to Part 1

WG3

reply posted on 9-3-2008 @ 08:42 PM by larryroyc

bob white wanted this posted to this thread as he doesnt
use a computor. you can contact him at the provided number
or email address for futher information. a press release will
be forth coming. i will advise the group when that happens.
larry
ufoevidence.conforums.com...

From the desk of Bob White

Excerts from report concerning
on going tests of the Bob White object.

I was hired by Bob White to review and report if
further tests should be done on the Bob White object.
]
The following are my conclusions.

The NIDS report though well written, the findings where
inaccurate because of an incomplete analysis of the
object. When i taught at college, had a student written
a report like the one from Los Alamos they would have
received a failing grade.

Here are my findings to date.

The aluminum present in the Bob White object is pure.
There is no known process that can produce pure
aluminum on our planet.

One can only conclude from this find that the
origin of the Bob White object is extraterrestrial.

Mr White has permission to release my name and the
facility I work for at his discression.

Released March 9, 2008
Bob White
contact information
bobwhite2@interlink.net
417 739 4742

[edit on 10-3-2008 by larryroyc]

reply posted on 10-3-2008 @ 04:06 PM by larryroyc

reply to post by larryroyc

i put in the wrong email address.
email is
robertwhite2@interlink.net
417 739 4742
ufoevidence.conforums.com...

reply posted on 10-3-2008 @ 05:31 PM by WitnessFromAfar

reply to post by tayga

Tayga! Thanks for answering my question

It's wonderful to see you again here at ATS, you've always got a great perspective to share.

I concur with your analysis, and appreciate your explanation of the Isotope presence!

reply posted on 6-4-2008 @ 01:52 PM by larryroyc

reply to post by FireMoon

i want to make it perfectly clear THAT NO NEW TEST WHERE DONE BY ATS OR ANYONE INVOLVED WITH ATS on the material recovered by Bob White.

there was a review done by some aledged expert whose name was not released to verify his expertise to even review prior testing we have had done.

ANY TESTING WE DO WE RELEASE NAMES...if you wont stand behind your findings and conclusions your opionion on any subject is worthless.

his conclusions from the review of old test material that is inaccurate to say the very least, hold more questions than any valid answers to prior tests we had done AND HAVE GONE OVER MORE THAN ONE TIME.

as far as im concerned his review is worthless and ATS wasted alot of money if they paid more than a hundred bucks for his findings..

many questions where not answered by the ATS expert including EMF, XRAY EXPOSURES, AND THE GAMMA BETA AND NEUTRON RADIATION ALREADY IDENTIFIED BY CREDIBLE SOURCES in the scientific field and verified by other tests performed since then...

FOR ANY CREDIBLE EXPERT TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THIS GUY DID FROM REVIEWS OF TOTALLY INACCURATE DATA is laughable if it wasnt sad..

what ever ATS paid this guy you got screwed mark..

other tests are on going and new information has been released about aluminum findings.

ufoevidence.conforums.com...

i wanted to make sure there is NO MISUNDERSTANDING concerning tests done and review of material we have already studied many years to get to the point we are now with findings of extraterresrial indicators in the Bob White object.

contact myself or bob white at the above email or phone numbers provided for more information if you want the information first hand and not on a message board with misinformation and misleading conclusions from old material..we never stop collecting data on the bob white objec..

Since 1996 the bob white object is
The Most Scientifically Tested
Physical Evidence of UFOs ever presented to the public. PERIOD...
.

larry cekander
VP/lead projects coordinator
the Museum of the Unexplained.
Reeds Spring, Mo

reply posted on 7-4-2008 @ 06:09 PM by Springer

reply to post by larryroyc

That's correct, no new tests were done by our metallurgist. Before spending any money on additional testing we wanted a professional review of the existing data. That was done, it was determined there was no value in further testing as the evidence all points to a mundane piece of slag. That's only one of a few expert's opinion but it's what we said we would do.

We spent money on a totally disinterested, totally independent professional to review the existing data asking him for ANY hole in the previous tests that would justify, in his professional opinion, a reason for more tests. Without that we can't justify spending more money on tests. Why would we ignore a PhD metallurgists recommendations?

I have said that I will disclose the name of the PhD who reviewed the existing data on a case by case basis so I know who has it in the even there is any "not cricket" use of his name.

I also offered to Larry ATS' help with a fund raiser for the money needed for the tests they believe will counter all the data already amassed on the object back in January, I never heard back about that offer.

Needless to say, we are way too busy now with other initiatives to deal with this further. But if the tests get done we will gladly present the results here and on our upcoming radio shows.