It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Pentagon admits it has been testing wreckage

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2021 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: 111DPKING111

But Nitinol isn't a "mystery metal", it's just an alloy of nickel and titanium

It was "discovered" in 1959 during missile R&D.


You know what though? To a laymen in 1947, metalized Mylar would have fit the description of "memory metal" to someone seeing it for the first time.

I mean, it looks like regular tin foil/aluminum foil that the people in 1947 were accustomed to seeing in their kitchens, but instead of becoming a ball of foil after it's crush (like tin/aluminum foil will), metalized Mylar will "magically" bounced back into a sheet after it's crushed.

Remember, in 1947 plastics had not yet become as ubiquitous as they are today. One of the people who described the Roswell mystery metal was Bill Brazel (as did a Sergeant Earl Fulford), and this is how Brazel described it:

" several bits of a metal-like substance, something on the order of tinfoil except that this stuff wouldn’t tear and was actually a bit darker in color than tinfoil—more like lead foil, except very thin and extremely lightweight. The odd thing about this foil was that you could wrinkle it and lay it back down and it immediately resumed its original shape. It was quite pliable, yet you couldn’t crease or bend it like ordinary metal. It was almost more like a plastic of some sort, except that it was definitely metallic in nature..."

Sergeant Fulford's description was similar.

So, yeah -- maybe it was Nitinol that the witnesses saw, but I think someone in 1947 seeing, feeling, and crushing a sheet of aluminized Mylar for the first time would be amazed by its bounce-back properties.

edit on 2/15/2021 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2021 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I think this world would be for entertainment purposes only for aliens.
WOW just look how stupid these beings are.
Kinda like watching reality TV imo.
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk



posted on Feb, 15 2021 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
It doesn't look like mylar, it looks like aluminum foil paper as seen in the photo below from "The Roswell Report" by the Air Force. Since that's what the specifications called for, that's probably what it was. Keep in mind the man holding the material said it was indestructible even though it was in pieces so I can't say I really trust their descriptions too much, I trust the photograph more.



The report also has Irving Newton's affidavit and he recognized the wreckage which nobody else on the base did, he was the only one who has seen that type of target before since it wasn't commonly used domestically as his affidavit says "They were used mostly on special projects and overseas":



edit on 2021215 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 15 2021 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: panoz77
What's the more likely scenario? That humans on this tiny ball of dirt are the only intelligent beings in the limitless universe or that there are many others out there? Well common sense and mathematics says the later is true. We are not unique, we are not alone, we are not as smart as we think we are. It is almost laughable to think that humans are the only intelligent life in the universe.


The more likely scenario is proven by Earth itself. We happen to be the perfect enviroment to host a highly intelligent species. Over the 4.5 billion year history and billions of species that have existed, only one was intelligent. Those billions of species headed for an end goal of survival and that only required basic intelligence. That will likely evolve on another planet. So if you're using mathematics with your answer then mathematics shows human levels of intelligence is not going to be likely.

Humans have the basic intelligence to survive but our branch to high intelligence was a complete fluke and a series of unique events not likely to happen elsewhere. If that branch was a likely and an ultimate outcome then high intelligence should be spread across other species. That alone shows that it's not likely and you can't conclude that high intelligence will be out there. It's possible, just not likely.

Plus the distances needed to be traveled combined with the relative tiny span of time we've existed in the universe is another factor.



posted on Feb, 15 2021 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm only going by what Mac Brazel and his son Bill had said about materials Mac had found (albeit their statements came years after the actual incident occurred).

Maybe Major Jesse Marcel (the man in your picture) and Irving Newton saw a material that looked more like regular aluminum foil (as the image indicates), but the Brazels and an air force sergeant named Fulford described a sheet that was more like plastic.

Of course, as you indicated, no one in the 1947 report stated that the material had uncrumple-able or indestructible qualities. It wasn't until 1980 that the alleged uncrumple-able material was said to be part of the story when Bill Brazel contributed to a book on the subject. So that part of the might have been conflated by Mac Brazel and/or Bill Brazel with other experiences they had over the intervening years.

But let's say the Brazels and Sergeant Fulford honestly believed (correct or incorrectly) that the material they saw in 1947 was like plastic metal sheet with a bounce-back quality. If so, then they could be confusing their memories a little and substituting in the idea of aluminized Mylar, which became commercially available in the mid 1950s.


edit on 2/15/2021 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2021 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I continue to contend that Mac Brazel would have mentioned this in his 1947 newspaper interview. He handled the material and did so several times and would have mentioned this property. Specifically the second time he went back to gather up the debris after hearing of the reward for a flying disc. Believing it was a flying disc at the time, he would have made a point to notice anything out of the ordinary. This is supported by his newspaper interview, with Brazel searching for propellers and noticing small details like eyelets. He was searching for the unusual and would have talked about any strange properties.

edit on 15-2-2021 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2021 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Of course, as you indicated, no one in the 1947 report stated that the material had uncrumple-able or indestructible qualities. It wasn't until 1980 that the alleged uncrumple-able material was said to be part of the story when Bill Brazel contributed to a book on the subject. So that part of the might have been conflated by Mac Brazel and/or Bill Brazel with other experiences they had over the intervening years.
Yes, I tend to focus on the reports at the time as more reliable than later distortions. especially 3 decades later.


But let's say the Brazels and Sergeant Fulford honestly believed (correct or incorrectly) that the material they saw in 1947 was like plastic metal sheet with a bounce-back quality. If so, then they could be confusing their memories a little and substituting in the idea of aluminized Mylar, which became commercially available in the mid 1950s.
I guess we could speculate on what caused memory distortions. If you want to do that, my speculation is that since it wasn't ordinary aluminum foil, it made an impression on them that it didn't behave like ordinary aluminum foil, which I'm sure it didn't since the aluminum foil paper has different properties than plain aluminum foil.

Someone made a table of all the witnesses who claimed to have handled the debris and recorded the stated properties. One quick glance tells us that some of the descriptions contradict each other, so the individual descriptions decades later aren't reliable. For example, Jesse Marcel's son handled the material, and he remembers the balsa wood sticks as "I-beam" shaped, which the table shows no other witness recalls. So do we really need to speculate on what caused him to remember I-beams because sometime after 1947, he saw some I-beams somewhere? It doesn't seem necessary or important to track down every memory distortion, but he really did seem to remember the sticks as I-beam shaped for some reason, while none of the other witnesses reported an I-beam shape to the sticks.



posted on Feb, 16 2021 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


The report also has Irving Newton's affidavit and he recognized the wreckage which nobody else on the base did, he was the only one who has seen that type of target before since it wasn't commonly used domestically as his affidavit says "They were used mostly on special projects and overseas":



I believe Newton's 1994 statement is accurate, except for the "alien" references he inserted on behalf of Marcel. But I guess even Newton couldn't resist adding them decades later. As it is, we have no contemporary evidence at all that extraterrestrial origins were in the minds of anybody connected with this case in 1947 - not even the press, and certainly not in the mind of Kenneth Arnold a few weeks earlier, who initially supported the notion of Cold War craft; decades later, Ken evolved this into 'spirits of the dead', but that's another story! Indeed, in polls, only a tiny (virtually negligible) minority of the general public swayed towards 'ET' as an explanation.

Overall, this is why the mythical Marcel diaries from 1947 caused so much interest in recent years, if solely for the first documented contemporary use of 'ET' in that particular case. Even Project Blue Book judged Roswell as being unworthy of exploration - it was already a forgotten non-story by 1952... until dragged groaning from its grave by dear 'ole Stanton Friedman decades later...

... but that's...



... and...




edit on 16-2-2021 by ConfusedBrit because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join