Ted Phillips on UFO Physical Trace Research.

Physical trace cases from the U.S. - Ted Phillips pops up around 8:15 in the second video:

Entire Family Witness Landed UFO - Mellen, Wisconsin, 1975.

The Black Vault Encyclopedia Project posts the Phyllis Budinger collection from Frontier Analysis laboratories which deal with the study of physical traces related to the UFO phenomenon.

The Phyllis Budinger Collection

A life long interest in the mystery of the UFO phenomenon was the impetus for Phyllis Budinger to establish a small laboratory dedicated to the study of physical traces related to UFO events. Frontier Analysis, Ltd. was launched in March 2000. Since then, the laboratory has examined numerous UFO trace samples from all over the world. These include samples from abductions, cattle mutilations, crop circles, UFO deposits, and angel hair.

www.theblackvault.com...

hyllis_Budinger_Collection

reply to post by karl 12

...Since then, the laboratory has examined numerous UFO trace samples from all over the world. These include samples from abductions, cattle mutilations, crop circles, UFO deposits, and angel hair.

How about doing a little sleuthing for us and find some independent and reputable lab reports on this trace evidence? If anything it will give you another excuse to bump your own threads and keep your name up in lights, lol.

Come on, give 'em a call and stop doing what you call "armchair investigating" (although I believe the word you used was debunking but you get the idea.

I've done my share of travel and interviews, etc, back before the internet was even close to widespread. It seems these days anyone with an internet connection can suddenly become an expert.....odd that.

So with that I propose you contact these people and get down to the bottom of it. Then do that for the next 30 years and let me know your conclusions.

Do you need their number and/or mailing address? Or maybe have ATS do it officially so they take it more seriously? Check with the big three and see what they say...I mean, it's not like they have ever been burned before and turned up nothing, lol (which was not their fault).

I'm not trying to sound mean, just saying what's on my mind.

Originally posted by gameisupman

I'm not trying to sound mean, just saying what's on my mind.

What like in this post and this post?

I think you might be damaged goods mate.

reply to post by karl 12


You rebuttal is devoid of content related to the thread, and typical of someone who feels backed into a corner with no ammunition. Sorry for putting you in the mental condition.

So what your saying is you have no interest in actually looking into the very things you post about several times daily? Your just doing us all a favor by "getting the information out there"......or are you being a "useful idiot" for others that need people like you to keep the focus elsewhere.

Come on armchair believer, make a few calls and get the some information. I can't conceive of making a "trace evidence" thread without actually picking up the phone and calling labs involved and actually speaking to the folks, then looking into the labs themselves. Now that would be a service to the community AND you could still keep you name up in lights.

Just because what I say makes 100% sense but you don't like how I am saying it doesn't mean you shouldn't listen.

I took the initiative and investigated "Frontier Analysis laboratories". And as I suspected, it was formed with a specific purpose in mind, with a desire to ascertain a certain conclusion (tried to call them, but just got a machine, legitimate looking website though, so kudos for that).

Why would Phyllis Budinger feel the need to start up a "lab" to look into UFO "trace" evidence when there are THOUSANDS of already reputable labs that she can use, and pretty cheap at that.

Gee, I wonder. At least they are "accredited"....but then again my neighbors kid could get the same accreditation using his junior chemistry set..

Really makes you wonder, again, why start a lab when you can use plenty of others. Sure, cheaper to own your own lab, the the data will never be taken seriously unless independently controlled labs reproduce it.

And angel hair, that's a good one.

Maybe I should contact Phyllis and ask what was her thought process leading to this decision, have you done that, or just arm-chaired trolled the internet and regurgitate your "findings" here?

Oh, this is classic: Phyllis

Stan Romanek?!? Nuff said. There's one born every minute I guess.

Her labs a joke, and her desire to believe in idiotic cases (like the ones in her own bio) ruin any credibility she may have. But I understand that the lack of credibility is almost a badge of honor among the UFO people, so I guess it fits in perfect around here.

Originally posted by gameisupman

I took the initiative..

Well congratulations, it's the first time you've ever done that on these boards.

You make some fair points about certain cases in the previous post but before we discuss the subject of physical trace evidence for specific UFO incidents can I ask you if you're the same person posting behind ATS members 'Mainlinethis' and 'IgnoreTheFacts'?

If it is you Jerry then hello.

So we have around 3-5k physical trace evidence reports, a lot (if not a vast majority) of which has been investigated by CfPTR & Ted. Now, we already have one 'event' - the Flatwoods monster - which supposedly had hard evidence of metal & liquid at the site removed.

So statistically, Ted should have also come across some other form of more substansial/hard evidence (like the Flatwoods event) by now. I mean, lets look at it from from this angle: are we honestly saying that 1 in 3.5 thousand cases of UFO landings result in hard (and I mean something other than scorched soil or slight changes in chemical composition) evidence; it just so happened that the said hard evidence was 'taken' and not returned?Come on, really? Do you think that it's just a little too convienient?

If we are talking extraterrestrial craft, and mean spaceships, regardless of what propulsion they would use (even those potentially outside of our current understanding of physics, thermodynamics and with a chemical make up not even necessarily on our version of the periodic table), surely we should have more? I mean much more. I mean proof. Actual proof that we are being visited by something we cannot explain. You cannot have 3.5k events of something touching something (craft + ground in this case) else without more evidence than is currently offered as a physical trace. Look at modern forensics for example: we are mere scientifically backward humans by comparison to a race who can build a spaceship & fly it here and yet can we find microscopic traces of blood on clothing, skin under fingernails, DNA(!!!!!) contamination at crime scenes. And yet, in 3.5k alleged landings there is nothing more than dehydrated soil, slight variations in EXISTING chemical composition and nothing really more of any substance (excuse the pun)

And almost 60 years later and we actually don't have anything. Anything validated by several respected laborotories. Anything which can now be taken in to any modern University and tested by even their lowly science department. They're not spooks! They don't work for the Government and have a protocol which tells them to send all hard evidence to a secret agency with no questions asked.

I do honestly believe that we are not alone. I also believe there is a very slight chance we have been 'visited', it would stand to reason. We ARE interesting. We ARE one of a kind in the solar system. So I'm not a debunker.

But look at the trace evidence. Whilst some of it is unusual, almost* all of it IS explainable with current science. Almost all of it IS composed from our current periodic table. *Sure I said 'almost' as nothing is definitive and, in my heart of hearts, I hope I'm not right!

I credit the work being done by Ted but you have to put it into perspective. We have no evidence as a result of the physical trace research.

reply to post by The Shrike


Aren't you arrogant and ill-mannered towards anyone doing a research rather than using some forum called ATS which bears no importance in credibility or debunking and waiting someone to show something to be bashed. So easy to stay away and not move yar аss and only stomp what others do than making your own research.

And another pseudo (more like troll) joins the blacklist
-----------------

Useful information again OP, idk who that is but since he is not rushed to be called fake/hoaxer I can look into the videos.,

reply to post by karl 12


Again, you can't address what I posted, you want to attack the poster. I realize you work for ATS and your job is to promote clicks any way you can, it's starting to show.

Can you please address the content of my posts? If you fail to do so, it pretty much confirms everything I thought about you.

Now quick, run off and bump another one of your threads with a useless bit of 10 year old information and bath in the light of the ignorant who call you "well researched". Sad, just sad.

reply to post by Seleucus


Um, yeah, your wasting your breath. Bringin logic and reson into someone's religious like belief in the absurd means anything you say makes you a debunker or a right wing moron. Seriously, read this thread (and as I count, 7 others on this very page). Disagree and you are hurting their click throughs, they can't have that.