posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:19 PM
the evidence does not point to slag at all. its points to a discharge of a molten aluminum mixture of 30 plus element outside of our atmosphere in a
the thermal nuetron radiation was not even mentioned mark..only 2 places to get that. a reactor or outer space. thats it. since we dont glow in the
dark that rules out a nuclear reactor. we have bubble chamber tests that prove thermal neutron radiation is present in the object along with gamma and
beta during the same tests. we also have video of tests done at IEEE nuclear symposium of a high scale counter going nuts around the object. that is
in our new DVD as is the bubble chamber and pure aluminum from our scientist in boston.
with a nuclear engineering background should be able to comment on that which he didnt. why? the xray exposure was never explained. why?
the EMF from the object was never mentioned. why?
"The reviewer is a Metallurgist with a Nuclear Engineering background and does not claim to be a physicist or a chemist or an expert in meteorites or
other space-related fields of study."
i believe i would have used someone with some kind of credentials in space study at the very least to get opinions on a piece of metal recovered from
a ufo encounter and has passed 3 polygraph tests to what happend that night.
if your going to have a review of old tests you get old results. dont take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
could have save you money it you wanted that done.
you said you wanted to review the old data to see what new tests should be done to enhance what has already been isolated and found.
you will never discover anything if you continue to rely on data presented by the government concerning UFO'S. Los Alamos and Scripps La Jolla are
government funded labs. i just dont think they are going to tell the whole truth concerning what they found. we know they didnt as we have taped
converstation with both DUNN and RIESWEIG the los alamos scientist who did tests there on the object lieing
i will say this again. show me another one of these pieces of slag...have your expert show me one or better yet make it since hes a metalurgist.
your scientist showed nothing that looks like this metal.
he states and i quote
There are questions that remain unanswered and may never be answered. If one were to persist in the quest to obtain more results (at the expense of
time and money), then the following thoughts might be considered, since they arose during the review process. However, they will probably not provide
any more information than what already exists: 1) obtain services of an expert in isotope systematics to critique prior test results, 2) review
metallographic samples to clarify splat interactions, 3) determine if remelting or ablation occurred on feathery edges, and 4) characterize shape and
surface morphology of objects that penetrate or originate in the Earth’s atmosphere.
if a core sample isnt done and then isotope testing on the core then he is right. nothing new. we said this up front on the phone
we have new data from testing at MIT...
we will continue the quest because all tests we have done say this isnt
terrestrial at all..and till someone make me one right here on good old planet earth we know it came from outside of our atmosphere and the data says
you cant use basic elemental tests. we are way past that for information.
again thanks for you trying to get some data but old data wont do it..
its just that simple
when i got a bit of time i will go point by point on your experts review..
to be very honest it isnt a very good report at all and thats a fact.
i just dont have time myself to rehash old useless data or new useless opinions of old data
i would appriciate you sending his name to me in private. i will not release it to the public but i do feel we should know what credentials he has
since he seems so sure its such a common material