Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
bison

Roswell debris tested; Not from Earth

905 posts in this topic

Hey quillius,

Please do drop in at any time. I always enjoy reading what you have to say :)

People would be talking, however, if we had this kind of evidence they would also be able to back it up. What many people fail to realize is that, by far, the largest part of scientific analyses is done by civilian entities and they talk. Simply because that is their job, they publish. Not only that, they are curious people, eager to share information to learn more. And if they had something substantial to share, it would come with the hard data to support it.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Hey Badeskov,

thank you. :tu:

I see your points, all I would say is that IF Roswell for example was real and the government were in possession of some alien craft then I do not think that this kind of material would be placed with 'civilian' entities for testing. In the case of Frank Kimbler and anyone else who makes such a claim then yes these may well be tested by such.

:tu:

And yet by the same logic you are expecting everyone to believe that ETHers can determine everything we need to know about a UFO from a few seconds glance at a distance?

why not...we are smarter than the average bear booboo. :):P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roswell debris tested; Not from Earth so where's it from then K MART :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed we can! Can you fly to the Sun using only your own body and walk on it naked?

Can you post my wife's middle name? I imagine that you seem to think that such is possible and a demonstration would convince me.

I never said that was the case, but you are remiss in mentioning that what we do know makes up a base so to speak. Just like with the hominid model, initial base findings were correct, we do have evolution, yet it took many decades to refine that progression from a relay into a malay. It leaves room to modify what we do know. That is the very essence of science. Science is not Knowledge, it is the pursuit of knowledge.

As I said above, I see every reason to believe that we have indeed worked out some basics. I always think of E=MC2 as the Universes 1+1=2. I expect room for improvement, but I do not believe there is any reason to feel that physics requires a complete re-write. It is working quite OK so far. NASA's LISA experiment is going great guns, and should shore up GR principals quite solidly as we speak.

How is this relevant? I could also tell you how science has been held back for centuries by belief. I am quite sure you are well aware of such historical record. Science has not held science back. Men have held science back. That is the big difference here. Science prevails.

No it would not allow travel at all. How do you envisage it would? The dimensions that M theory predicts are microscopic. Not useful to us physically in any way, and yes, they (dimensions) are new "ways to move" not new universes and worlds. Sci Fi writers have much to explain there. As such, the best we can hope for from that avenue is a better communications system for interstellar distances. Can you offer a proposal whereby we might send a spaceship through a microscopic opening? You have your work cut out for you there I have to say. Expecting others to simply "accomplish the impossible" is a very long way from an objective viewpoint I find personally. It seems a bit of a cop out too I have to say. Surely we are not just going to wait around in hope that someone is better at this than we are?

[/quote


The sort of possibility I was speaking of is not about what can be done at the moment but what might be done in the future. Also, I did not say that everything that could be imagined was possible. The presumption that certain things currently undo-able will continue to be so is what I was challenging. My examples about radioactivity and radio waves were quite relevant. I did not intend to criticize the scientific process, but to emphasize its open-ended nature. Much of what science would have rejected two centuries ago is now commonplace. Who can say that a means of space travel, currently unthinkable, won't, two centuries hence, be similarly commonplace?

One of the possible consequences of M Theory is that our known universe resides in a membrane surrounded by a large 'bulk space'. It was this space to which I was referring in my comments about higher dimensional short cuts, not to the minute dimensions described by String Theory.

Edited by bison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sort of possibility I was speaking of is not about what can be done at the moment but what might be done in the future.

I still have to disagree. With examples of our Industrial Revolution, things that were deemed "impossible" Like breaking the sound barrier had examples in nature. Some even man made. The extrapolations brought about by string theory have expanded into a Sci FI world, not relative to the one we deal with each day.

Also, I did not say that everything that could be imagined was possible.

That is right, so I answered the question. You said if we can imagine something, can we know it is impossible. I feel established a positive in that regard?

The presumption that certain things currently undo-able will continue to be so is what I was challenging. My examples about radioactivity and radio waves were quite relevant. I did not intend to criticize the scientific process, but to emphasize its open-ended nature. Much of what science would have rejected two centuries ago is now commonplace. Who can say that a means of space travel, currently unthinkable, won't, two centuries hence, be similarly commonplace?

What is the point of imaging such? As development arise, the path will become clear. We have been on this path for decades, and have a viable concept with Nuclear Propulsion via the Orion Project. Today is more difficult due to the snake oil salesmen saturating the UFO field. I cannot possibly imagine any of these crackpots (David Icke etc.) holding an answer. I feel we need to clear that stale air to make a fresh approach to an age old conundrum, as older research has lead nowhere.

One of the possible consequences of M Theory is that our known universe resides in a membrane surrounded by a large 'bulk space'. It was this space to which I was referring in my comments about higher dimensional short cuts, not to the minute dimensions described by String Theory.

Ahh, so you are referring to Brane Cosmology. Are there not some serious problems to overcome between Einstein and Maxwell there? 5 dimensional space has some serious stability problems as far as I know, like string theory, I feel it is a little early to start designing starships based upon that theory. It might be wrong or right, all we can do for the moment is follow the progress, and current results from the LHC are not too promising.

Search for Microscopic Black Hole Signatures at the Large Hadron Collider

Who knows, maybe Kaluza–Klein geometry will come charging over the hill to save the day. But lets not start holding our breath just yet.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking his vow of silence, Frank Kimbler posted recently on the ATS forum. He was much more informative than usual; explaining the reasons for the delay in retesting his metal fragments, and giving a preliminary report on what has been learned recently. He indicates that he wishes to have the proportions of the isotopes of magnesium, aluminum, and possibly copper assayed. He seeks a precision of 0.1 % , and an error factor of the same size. He adds that the weight of the proposed sample is just under 3 milligrams. As mentioned before, he seeks a certified lab.


He reports that this combination of requirements has made it difficult to find an appropriate lab to do the work, or to have it done in a short period of time. An interesting situation. Given his specificity, it should be possible for someone knowledgeable in this area to check his claims against reality. Has he overstated, or overestimated the difficulties involved, or is his situation, as presented, reasonable? If the former is the case, he needs to be advised of this and pointed in the direction of laboratories that could do this work in a timely manner.

Edited by bison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best part is the "Not Of part" !

Like in not really real part.

I.E. "=MC2" or M.I.B`s is about as close to E.T. as Roswell = E.T - All the possibilities combined = Mass Brain Damage. :innocent: justDONTEATUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking his vow of silence, Frank Kimbler posted recently on the ATS forum. He was much more informative than usual; explaining the reasons for the delay in retesting his metal fragments, and giving a preliminary report on what has been learned recently. He indicates that he wishes to have the proportions of the isotopes of magnesium, aluminum, and possibly copper assayed. He seeks a precision of 0.1 % , and an error factor of the same size. He adds that the weight of the proposed sample is just under 3 milligrams. As mentioned before, he seeks a certified lab.


He reports that this combination of requirements has made it difficult to find an appropriate lab to do the work, or to have it done in a short period of time. An interesting situation. Given his specificity, it should be possible for someone knowledgeable in this area to check his claims against reality. Has he overstated, or overestimated the difficulties involved, or is his situation, as presented, reasonable? If the former is the case, he needs to be advised of this and pointed in the direction of laboratories that could do this work in a timely manner.

Hi bison,

The short answer is no, his problems are not valid. Labs doing such routinely handle samples with a mass of tenths of micrograms, I.e. hundreds of times smaller than his proposed sample mass. And a 0.1% accuracy would be laughable. They are much, much better than that.

I'll see if I can find some numbers when I get home.

And the tests he requested are straight forward, no time penalty incurred anywhere.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why not...we are smarter than the average bear booboo. :):P

Hey Quillius

Somehow I am detecting some TIC in the reply........... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking his vow of silence, Frank Kimbler posted recently on the ATS forum. He was much more informative than usual; explaining the reasons for the delay in retesting his metal fragments, and giving a preliminary report on what has been learned recently. He indicates that he wishes to have the proportions of the isotopes of magnesium, aluminum, and possibly copper assayed. He seeks a precision of 0.1 % , and an error factor of the same size. He adds that the weight of the proposed sample is just under 3 milligrams. As mentioned before, he seeks a certified lab.


He reports that this combination of requirements has made it difficult to find an appropriate lab to do the work, or to have it done in a short period of time. An interesting situation. Given his specificity, it should be possible for someone knowledgeable in this area to check his claims against reality. Has he overstated, or overestimated the difficulties involved, or is his situation, as presented, reasonable? If the former is the case, he needs to be advised of this and pointed in the direction of laboratories that could do this work in a timely manner.

Just to add to my previous post, here is a very nice tutorial on mass spec. Very informative. Just to snip a few paragraphs:

A mass spectrum will usually be presented as a vertical bar graph, in which each bar represents an ion having a specific mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) and the length of the bar indicates the relative abundance of the ion. The most intense ion is assigned an abundance of 100, and it is referred to as the base peak. Most of the ions formed in a mass spectrometer have a single charge, so the m/z value is equivalent to mass itself. Modern mass spectrometers easily distinguish (resolve) ions differing by only a single atomic mass unit, and thus provide completely accurate values for the molecular mass of a compound. The highest-mass ion in a spectrum is normally considered to be the molecular ion, and lower-mass ions are fragments from the molecular ion, assuming the sample is a single pure compound.

Atomic mass is given in terms of the unified atomic mass unit (symbol: μ) or dalton (symbol: Da). In recent years there has been a gradual change towards using the dalton in preference to the unified atomic mass unit. The dalton is classified as a "non-SI unit whose values in SI units must be obtained experimentally". It is defined as one twelfth of the rest mass of an unbound atom of carbon-12 in its nuclear and electronic ground state, and has a value of 1.660538782(83)x10-27 kg.

Since a mass spectrometer separates and detects ions of slightly different masses, it easily distinguishes different isotopes of a given element.

This is another good and informative article on mass spectrometry. It's somewhat more technical, but rather informative nonetheless. A few quotes:

“A well-prepared sample, a well-defined analytical goal, the appropriate use of accurate mass, reproducible retention times and good instrument control generates unassailable data.” To this he adds:“Make it run in triplicate, and [you] get real data from which to draw conclusions.”

Which is pretty obvious :P And, more interestingly:

Simply stated, mass accuracy is the ability to measure or calibrate the instrument response against a known entity. Usually expressed in parts per million (ppm), the measurement indicates the deviation of the instrument response from a known monoisotopic calculated mass.

So it's ability to measure and thus separate mass is measured in ppm, or parts per million (with some rather expensive equipment being even better). From the table in the article on pp. 38 an example list of known substances and the errors measured. All under 5ppm. Given that 0.1% corresponds to 1000ppm, current accuracies are in the 0.0005% range.

Frankly, his so called problems in finding an accredited lab that can meet his rather lax requirements rings a bit hollow to me.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking his vow of silence, Frank Kimbler posted recently on the ATS forum. He was much more informative than usual; explaining the reasons for the delay in retesting his metal fragments, and giving a preliminary report on what has been learned recently. He indicates that he wishes to have the proportions of the isotopes of magnesium, aluminum, and possibly copper assayed. He seeks a precision of 0.1 % , and an error factor of the same size. He adds that the weight of the proposed sample is just under 3 milligrams. As mentioned before, he seeks a certified lab.


He reports that this combination of requirements has made it difficult to find an appropriate lab to do the work, or to have it done in a short period of time. An interesting situation. Given his specificity, it should be possible for someone knowledgeable in this area to check his claims against reality. Has he overstated, or overestimated the difficulties involved, or is his situation, as presented, reasonable? If the former is the case, he needs to be advised of this and pointed in the direction of laboratories that could do this work in a timely manner.

Oh, and he doesn't need to specify that he needs magnesium, aluminum and possibly (??) copper assessed. If he does a mass spec he'll get everything that is in there - everything. Which any lab would tell him if he had actually asked a lab, certified or not. That kinda tells me that he hasn't asked a lab and his problems are not as real as he would like to make them out to be.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi bison,

The short answer is no, his problems are not valid. Labs doing such routinely handle samples with a mass of tenths of micrograms, I.e. hundreds of times smaller than his proposed sample mass. And a 0.1% accuracy would be laughable. They are much, much better than that.

I'll see if I can find some numbers when I get home.

And the tests he requested are straight forward, no time penalty incurred anywhere.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Thanks, Badeskov. I was afraid the answer would be something like that. Even a non-specialist like myself has a sense that things can be measured in micrograms these days, and can be detected in parts per billion. Was holding out the hope that this might not apply where isotope ratios were concerned. If you can supply information about specific certified labs that could do the work that Mr. Kimbler says he wants done, and in a timely manner, I will pass the information along to him. At this point, it doesn't seem too likely that he will make appropriate use of such information, but I will afford him this one last benefit of the doubt His silence when presented with this information, or continued excuses, would conclude the matter, as far as I am concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Badeskov. I was afraid the answer would be something like that. Even a non-specialist like myself has a sense that things can be measured in micrograms these days, and can be detected in parts per billion. Was holding out the hope that this might not apply where isotope ratios were concerned. If you can supply information about specific certified labs that could do the work that Mr. Kimbler says he wants done, and in a timely manner, I will pass the information along to him. At this point, it doesn't seem too likely that he will make appropriate use of such information, but I will afford him this one last benefit of the doubt His silence when presented with this information, or continued excuses, would conclude the matter, as far as I am concerned.

My pleasure bison, and I am sorry I could not be more positive. :(

There are many such materials analysis labs around, even a simple Google search will do. But here are a few:

http://www.labtesting.com/

http://lehightesting.com/

http://www.chemir.com/materials-identification.asp?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=materials-testing

...

And the list goes on and on. Frankly, seek and you shall find.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today is more difficult due to the snake oil salesmen saturating the UFO field. I cannot possibly imagine any of these crackpots (David Icke etc.) holding an answer. I feel we need to clear that stale air to make a fresh approach to an age old conundrum, as older research has lead nowhere.

A friend of mine went to see David Icke in Cleveland and he (my friend) kept talking on and on about the wonderous David Icke. I decided to do some research on David Icke to find out what my friend found to be so "enlightening" ... scary stuff.

Check out this video i made:

. It's a tad lengthy (25 minutes), but if you're fascinated by the very odd, you'll watch every minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember these words "SNAK-OIL-SALESMAN" They do a lot of this on the internet ,AKA,e-bay,Craigslist,youtube,ect,ect,!

YOu can never replace real and quantifryed research ! :rolleyes:

20 to Go for a 10K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine went to see David Icke in Cleveland and he (my friend) kept talking on and on about the wonderous David Icke. I decided to do some research on David Icke to find out what my friend found to be so "enlightening" ... scary stuff.

Check out this video i made:

. It's a tad lengthy (25 minutes), but if you're fascinated by the very odd, you'll watch every minute.

I bet that was a night to remember!

Thank you very much for the link, I do not have sound right now, but I wil peruse later tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unexplained Mysteries columnist: Paul Dale Roberts interviews Chuck Wade,unexplained mysteries interviews Chuck Wade subject: UFO Crash Plains San Augustin New Mexico 1947

Edited by meteorlima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

German scientists create world's lightest material

German scientists have invented the world's lightest material - which is also strong, regains its shape after being squashed and even conducts electricity. Scientists believe the material will have a wide range of uses.

Aerographite made by scientists at Hamburg and Kiel universities, is 75 times lighter than polystyrene and four times lighter than the previous record holder for the world's lightest material.

The jet-black, carbon-based material is causing a stir in scientific circles across the world, wrote Die Welt newspaper on Tuesday.

“Our work is causing great discussions in the scientific community. Aerographite weights four times less than world-record-holder up to now,” co-author Matthias Mecklenburg, a PhD student at the Hamburg University of Technology told the paper.

http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20120718-43825.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read or heard any more about Frank Kimbler lately. The whole things seems to have dropped off the radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I am not shocked at this development ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no a new Roswell mystery material ! Next thing we will read is how the Germans have it locked up in an underground bunker somewhere !

Well 30 years ! IT never hurts to buy your stk options now ! "Aerographite" Kinda catchy name there A new Wunderbar is soon on the shelfs !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no a new Roswell mystery material !

jj4f9dec4f.gif

:unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

intrguing little document there mcrom...

AEC (atomic energy commission)

AFSWP (airforce / armed forces special weapon project)

4th Army.....?

local commanders perturbed by implications of phenomena....

:unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

intrguing little document there mcrom...

AEC (atomic energy commission)

AFSWP (airforce / armed forces special weapon project)

4th Army.....?

local commanders perturbed by implications of phenomena....

:unsure2:

This was one of the documents that led to the so-called Green Fireballs investigation, i.e. Project Twinkle.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

AEC (atomic energy commission)

[...]

... or maybe Aluminum Extruders Council, or Armoured a..aa...aaa...Echew..plumbers Center, or Army Environmental Command (US Army; formerly Army Environmental Center)? Guess latter. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ah! ET Cometh!" (Sorry!) :)

Edited by Matt Vinyl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.