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 2
Ligia Cabus

The weird mystery of the Colorado's stone

139 posts in this topic

blog259135.jpg

http://brazilweirdne...ados-stone.html

IT HAPPENED IN THE UNITED STATE IN 1985. It was dawn, 3 am. Robert White or Bob, told the program Tercer Milenio (Jaime Maussan) who drove his car on the highway between the states of Utah and Colorado when was faced with a strong light on the track.

Suddenly took flight and joined the other lights that were hovering in the sky. However, White could see that something flew off or was, perhaps, thrown from one of the ufos or from one of the points of light. It was the mysterious stone of Colorado.

http://brazilweirdne...ados-stone.html

AT YOUTUBE, audio in english

Evidencia física de material extraterrestre - Larry Cekander

Published on Jul 2, 2013.

http://youtu.be/FWGotq19imM

Edited by Ligia Cabus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres another one, with two horns, no ufo involved

custom-made-stalagmite-sm.jpg

Old story and debunked some time ago.

quote:

"Our expert Ean Harrison is a retired steel foundry quality control supervisor who worked in the Seattle area. Not only can he explain the origin of Bob White’s strange object, he once owned several of them and used them as garden ornaments. Harrison writes:

The object in question is made of accreted grinding residue. It forms in a manner similar to a common stalagmite when metal castings are “cleaned” on large stationary grinders. Rough castings need to have the parting line fins and gates smoothed to facilitate machining and reduce tool breakage. A typical stationary grinder in a foundry cleaning room used to hand clean castings up to 40 pounds may have a composite wheel 3 feet in diameter and 4 inches wide or larger.

http://www.skeptic.c...eptic/11-10-12/

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the thing was the tail of an armadillo but when I read the text and taking notice that the object is metallic, I had to give up that idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the thing was the tail of an armadillo but when I read the text and taking notice that the object is metallic, I had to give up that idea.

It just goes to show how unreliable these ufo stories are, when placed under scrutiny doesnt it? If he just touted his find around as 'interesting' it may never have gained much attention. But...add the strange lights/ufo in the sky to it, and something falling from the ufo....

And it convinces many people! :tu:

For a while anyway :lol:

.

Edited by seeder
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres another one, with two horns, no ufo involved

custom-made-stalagmite-sm.jpg

Old story and debunked some time ago.

quote:

"Our expert Ean Harrison is a retired steel foundry quality control supervisor who worked in the Seattle area. Not only can he explain the origin of Bob White’s strange object, he once owned several of them and used them as garden ornaments. Harrison writes:

The object in question is made of accreted grinding residue. It forms in a manner similar to a common stalagmite when metal castings are “cleaned” on large stationary grinders. Rough castings need to have the parting line fins and gates smoothed to facilitate machining and reduce tool breakage. A typical stationary grinder in a foundry cleaning room used to hand clean castings up to 40 pounds may have a composite wheel 3 feet in diameter and 4 inches wide or larger.

http://www.skeptic.c...eptic/11-10-12/

.

half my life ago, I worked with an industrial sized grinder at the old spring and wire factory. We had to clean it at the end of the day and seeing those stalactites for the first time does kind of take you by surprise.

It's obvious to anyone who is familiar with the process what we're looking at here.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depleted electric arc furnace electrode...post-71201-0-06490600-1380248515_thumb.j

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depleted electric arc furnace electrode...post-71201-0-06490600-1380248515_thumb.j

Nice find :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few slight queries.

If Bob White was trying to pull the wool over people's eyes by picking up commonly available residue from an arc furnace and making a fraudulent claim about it then do you not think he would be expecting his deception to be exposed?

Even if he found it by the roadside and hatched the devious plan without knowing that it was commonly available material he would in anyone's mind be taking a huge risk.

So that doesn't make a bit of sense to me.

Far more likely it happened the way he said it did. The object dropped from some unidentified craft as it flew away at amazingly high speed. From the following clip he saw "a huge light the size of a 3 storey building". It then connected with two tubular looking objects. It then ejected a glowing hot object which he then tracked down. It was still glowing hot when he located it on the ground. It made a groove in the ground as it landed at high speed.

Dr Robert Gibbons examined the artifact. Unexplained EM phenomena occurred around the object. The object exposed film that confirms that the object was emitting some unknown kind of radiation. Evidence of a cover up; scientists afraid to discuss it. Chris Ellis (physicist) who specialises in aluminium alloys and semi-conductors, was quoted as saying that the object was "extremely extraordinary" and he had never seen anything like it before. He confirms that it is an "alluminium alloy of unknown origin"...........etc

David Lamb is a research scientist specialising in physics and material scientist. He confirms that the object has unique crystal and material compositions different to normally found say in aircraft alloys or elsewhere.

Listen to the scientists for yourselves.

So do we have a case for saying Bob White is a hoaxer on the basis that his recovered object looks like an arc furnace artifact? I think that is more than a little obtuse. Are we saying that UFO's have no capability to discharge high power voltages to produce these artifacts? It may be part of their propulsion system.

So I see no debunk here. Even if a material composition breakdown was provided (which itself would need to be proved to be genuine), that seemed to indicate like for like composition with known material that would not be enough. The reason is that experts did examine it and said that it had no known common analogue; and more importantly :

Bob White's testimony has never been proven to be fraudulent.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have a known artifact of industrial manufacturing.

And yet Zoser can still claim with a straight face that the item is some kind of discharge from an interstellar spacecraft.

Even believers have to be able to claim BS at some point. Believers love to claim that while 95% of sightings are bogus, there is always that 5% that are unexplainable. But by believing and defending EVERYTHING, they quickly lose credibility.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few slight queries.

If Bob White was trying to pull the wool over people's eyes by picking up commonly available residue from an arc furnace and making a fraudulent claim about it then do you not think he would be expecting his deception to be exposed?

Because it's a residue from a single machine, used by a few people, in an single industry.

Hell, I'd never seen anything like it before. If it wasn't for the other posters saying "it's a wigwham for a goose's bridle" I'd still be in the dark beyond "maybe it's a meteorite".

And it's from a PRE-INTERNET day and age.

You have to remember, Billy Meier thought photographs of singers from the Dean Martin Show could be passed off as aliens.

At least this guy's got something that looks genuinely alienesque.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have a known artifact of industrial manufacturing.

In your images yes. We have no evidence that Bob White's sample came from an arc furnace. If you have please provide that evidence.

And yet Zoser can still claim with a straight face that the item is some kind of discharge from an interstellar spacecraft.

No. Watch and listen to the experts commenting on the sample. I gave you the clips. Listen to them and rather than ignore key evidence.

Even believers have to be able to claim BS at some point. Believers love to claim that while 95% of sightings are bogus, there is always that 5% that are unexplainable. But by believing and defending EVERYTHING, they quickly lose credibility.

The BS if there is any lies in the theory that Bob White picked up a common artifact and tried to sell it as ET. The evidence says that never happened. Of course of you ignore the evidence then any fantasy is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and zosers responses, in spite of REAL EVIDENCE, clearly show everyone that he is a total waste of anyone's time, to bother responding to. The man who has been owned more times than anyone here, has only one objective . To brainwash himself with youtube vids and then to come here and try to brainwash everyone else, while ignoring real facts and verifiable evidence.

One more time. Verifiable evidence. As with the 'alien stone'... which many here have pointed out is an man made waste product from industry.. BUT OH NO! Not zoser, oh no the master of nothing will not accept any earthly explanation. Which folks - means.... its pointless conversing with him. Pointless, fruitless, waste of anyone's time and energy.

So who will chose to keep up the idiocy with zoser and his manic obsessive ramblings?

I say again, zoser is ufology's big disaster. People like him make the whole subject seem the domain of cranks. he doesn't investigate, he doesn't research, so he doesnt really want to get to the bottom of anything...he just wants to believe in his vids and dubious ufo websites...he just hangs on the BS words of the fools in the HC/UFO hunters vids.. Ignorant to a high degree

.

Edited by seeder
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and zosers responses, in spite of REAL EVIDENCE, clearly show everyone that he is a total waste of anyone's time, to bother responding to. The man who has been owned more times than anyone here, has only one objective . To brainwash himself with youtube vids and then to come here and try to brainwash everyone else, while ignoring real facts and verifiable evidence.

What 'real evidence'?

You haven't presented any. Just posting a photo of residue from an arc furnace in no way debunks Bob White's claim.

The high power voltage required to to create the molten artifact is most probably a feature of the craft's propulsion system. What else could it be?

That's why I say listen to the scientists who originally examined the artifact. There is no conspiracy or hoaxing here that I can see. If you find one please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your images yes. We have no evidence that Bob White's sample came from an arc furnace. If you have please provide that evidence.

No. Watch and listen to the experts commenting on the sample. I gave you the clips. Listen to them and rather than ignore key evidence.

The BS if there is any lies in the theory that Bob White picked up a common artifact and tried to sell it as ET. The evidence says that never happened. Of course of you ignore the evidence then any fantasy is possible.

So let's recap shall we?

-We know what the item is.

-The item has been tested and found to be composed of fairly mundane earthly elements.

-The only folks claiming it is alien are UFO believers and conspiracy nuts.

To buy into your story, one has to believe that the world-wide scientific community that spends billions of dollars a year exploring our cosmos and searching for signs of alien life (and desperately wants to find it I might add) would have had to completely ignore this monumental discovery for the past three decades. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me.

And let us for a minute accept the notion that the item is what it is and that "science" and the government is trying to discredit and/or ignore such evidence. Why then is Bob White still alive and talking? Why is the artifact sitting in a former video store turned "museum" 12 miles outside of Branson, Missouri? If one believes UFO lore, shouldn't the Men in Black have 'silenced' him years ago and taken the item to Area 51 or some such place?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What 'real evidence'?

You haven't presented any. Just posting a photo of residue from an arc furnace in no way debunks Bob White's claim.

The high power voltage required to to create the molten artifact is most probably a feature of the craft's propulsion system. What else could it be?

That's why I say listen to the scientists who originally examined the artifact. There is no conspiracy or hoaxing here that I can see. If you find one please let me know.

When scientists find things, they publish their findings and post them in peer-reviewed journals. That's what scientists do and that's how they receive recognition, promotions, funding, and things like the Noble Prize. They don't simply talk about monumental discoveries on 10-year-old History Channel television shows.

Perhaps you saw the news this week of the paper published in Science about the water discoveries on Mars by the Curiosity rover team. If you recall, the announcement of the discovery took place about a year ago, but the paper was just published following submittal and peer review.

If finding something as mundane as water on another planet produces such excitement among the scientific community, why has this evidence of advanced alien life been ignored? Why haven't Bob White's scientists submitted their findings for peer-review and published their work. I would argue that even rudimentary findings on such an artifact would bring about millions in funding to do further studies. You do realize that such funding is the life blood for science.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find mind boggling is that some people can believe that this 'alien artifact' could come from an advanced alien civilization yet somehow looks exactly like what would come from an industrial grinder....even made of the same material! Just how far can you stretch a coincidence before it snaps and puts someone's eye out?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BS if there is any lies in the theory that Bob White picked up a common artifact and tried to sell it as ET. The evidence says that never happened. Of course of you ignore the evidence then any fantasy is possible.

People have successfully sold toast, potato chips and fairly ordinary paintings for huge sums on Ebay solely on the basis of unusual claims and attributes. Novelty is all in the presentation. Plenty of commerce in fact is based on taking something mundane from one place and packaging it as something special somewhere else.

They can't fool me though. Clearly that's a baby one of these:

ST-TNG_Tin_Man.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When scientists find things, they publish their findings and post them in peer-reviewed journals. That's what scientists do and that's how they receive recognition, promotions, funding, and things like the Noble Prize. They don't simply talk about monumental discoveries on 10-year-old History Channel television

Ever heard of scientific bias because of vested interests?

The research centres that first examined the Bob White artifact refused to talk in public. Why do you suppose that was?

Look into the blood rain case in Sri Lanka on The Unexplained Files thread for yet another example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever heard of scientific bias because of vested interests?

The research centres that first examined the Bob White artifact refused to talk in public. Why do you suppose that was?

Look into the blood rain case in Sri Lanka on The Unexplained Files thread for yet another example.

What vested interest? The vested interest that is currently spending billions around the world to discover life on other planets? Your point might have some credence if research into alien life wasn't ongoing and fully supported by governments, corporations, and private foundations.

As to the red rain, it has been going on for centuries and there are several legitimate theories as to what causes it. In other words, it was a credible mystery that scientists studied. Not the case with this artifact because it is clearly evident what it is from simply looking at it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What vested interest? The vested interest that is currently spending billions around the world to discover life on other planets? Your point might have some credence if research into alien life wasn't ongoing and fully supported by governments, corporations, and private foundations.

As to the red rain, it has been going on for centuries and there are several legitimate theories as to what causes it. In other words, it was a credible mystery that scientists studied. Not the case with this artifact because it is clearly evident what it is from simply looking at it.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What vested interest? The vested interest that is currently spending billions around the world to discover life on other planets? Your point might have some credence if research into alien life wasn't ongoing and fully supported by governments, corporations, and private foundations.

As to the red rain, it has been going on for centuries and there are several legitimate theories as to what causes it. In other words, it was a credible mystery that scientists studied. Not the case with this artifact because it is clearly evident what it is from simply looking at it.

The vested interest is this:

Any western scientist that works for a large corporation or university and goes out on a limb with an ET hypothesis will end up stigmatised with all the associated consequences.

In some parts of the world they operate a more liberal and open culture. This explains precisely why the scientists in Sri Lanka proposed an ET solution to the red rain phenomena and NASA rejected a request to participate.

It's right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vested interest is this:

Any western scientist that works for a large corporation or university and goes out on a limb with an ET hypothesis will end up stigmatised with all the associated consequences.

In some parts of the world they operate a more liberal and open culture. This explains precisely why the scientists in Sri Lanka proposed an ET solution to the red rain phenomena and NASA rejected a request to participate.

It's right there.

Er...no, that's your explanation. I think NASAs explanation why they didn't bother with it might be a bit more mundane.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever heard of scientific bias because of vested interests?

The research centres that first examined the Bob White artifact refused to talk in public. Why do you suppose that was?

Look into the blood rain case in Sri Lanka on The Unexplained Files thread for yet another example.

Yes. your post no.8 :- "David Lamb is a research scientist specialising in physics and material scientist. He confirms that the object has unique crystal and material compositions different to normally found say in aircraft alloys or elsewhere".

On many occasions on many subjects you have accused scientists & the scientific community of having 'vested interests' & telling untruths to cover up the existance of alien technology & yet you are quite happy to quote other scientist (though I doubt their piers would recognize them as such) when it suits to bolster your claims. You can't have it both ways.

Edited by itsnotoutthere
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser have good points, most of you are avoiding to to except or respond to.

As first if some object resembles a pile of ****, that doesn't mean the object is pile of **** " that is not evidence".

They don't simply talk about monumental discoveries on 10-year-old History Channel television shows.

The fact is they did talk to a "10-year-old History Channel television show" and that doesn't make it not true.

Ant its not there discovery, so they can't take the credit an publish it in a scientific journal, they merely did the test to see what kind of alloy is.

I need more then a photo of a object, if you compare the metallic properties of the two object and they turn to be the same then i will say yes this is the explanation, this is what the object can be. until then you didn't disprove a s***.

1 person likes this

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.