Official Outer Limits/Debunking Thread
View Poll Results: How would you want to go if the world had to end?
Zombie apocalypse
20
18.02%
Meteor collides into the earth
30
27.03%
Alien invasion
58
52.25%
Nuclear disaster, either from war or accident
3
2.70%
08-29-2010
, 07:32 AM
Probably gonna make two posts cause I'm still in the process of looking for info imo.
Ok so, so far it looks like there's been some conflict between reports.
Here's a video of an episode of UFO hunters and it has interviews with Bob White, Dr. Robert Gibbons, and two other scientists who I have yet to try to find some back ground on.
First of all, for formality, Dr. Robert Gibbons was born in Springfield, MO on February 6, 1943, has a Bachelor's Degree in Physics from Drury University, Springfield MO, and he did two years of graduate work at the University of Arkansas Graduate Institute of Technology, working towards a Master of Science degree in Instrumental Sciences. In 1976, he was awarded an LHD from St. Xavier's College in India.
Now, Bob White was born March 26, 1931 in Jackson County, MO. In September, 2000, Bob and his partner Larry Cekander opened the Museum of the Unexplained in Reeds Spring, MO with Bob as its director.
http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/in..._-_May.2C_2009
Robert Gibbons served as Executive Director of the Museum of the Unexplained in Reeds Spring, MO.
http://www.gibbonsresearch.com/aboutus.html
I can't find where I read it right now, but apparently the Museum of the unexplained was opened in what used to be a video rental store, and it was subsequently turned into a pool hall and the Museum of the unexplained was lodged in a 42 foot tour bus which drove cross country. That I can find!
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/4209
Another interesting note. Apparently Bob White sued Gibbons for unpaid telephone bills and they both appeared on the court television show Judge Joe Brown to settle their dispute. (I didn't find any clips of the show on youtube but I think someone posted a link to the audio on above top secret)
A post on above top secret allegedly from Dr. Gibbons himself regarding it:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread159762/pg5
Now, onto the object itself and the testing that's been done on it.
In the UFO hunters video, Dr. Gibbons appeared with Bob White (surprising right?
) and both are interviewed by the team of UFO hunters. Gibbons describes their observances of the object affecting wall safes, it had allegedly drained the safe batteries and they had to drill open the safe. Gibbons then describes how he tested the object for x-rays or gamma rays by making a cylinder, placing the object within and placing dental x-ray film at the top and bottom and on the sides for 48 hours and something caused the film to expose. It left two black marks on the film.
What this tells us about the object I have no idea. I'll leave it up to you to determine the objectivity of Dr. Gibbons and the significance of this test.
Then Bob White talks about how he first sent the object to New Mexico tech and mentions a couple people's names who are bleeped out. According to White, one of the Doctors said "had I known the story on this I would have suggested you do isotopic ratio abundance tests because we don't have the equipment here to perform these tests." White then talks about how he contacts arranged to go to Los Alamos where he met the top metallurgist (name bleeped out) and another doctor (name also bleeped out) who was called in for special occasions. White continues "and he was really excited about this cause he never seen anything like it before. He said to me 'this is something I've been looking for my all my life, this is definitely extra terrestrial."
White then goes on talking about how they have a Los Alamos report on silicon and he thought they were supposed to do the isotopic tests and the one bleeped out doctor tells him he'll have to talk to the other bleeped out doctor about it. The other bleeped out doctor says they didn't do any isotopic tests at all on it.
Bob White alleges that the Los Alamos scientists that did the testing were lying to him.
I've found this so far on the New Mexico tech testing. I believe this is a comparison between the Bob White object and aluminum alloy 360.
http://www.greatdreams.com/ufos/ufo_metal.htm
This is a copy of the Los Alamos report that I found on above top secret, allegedly provided to a poster by Larry Cekander.
Now I'm not sure if that's the same Los Alamos report that White talked about on UFO hunters cause it looks like they did isotopic tests here. Also, this report is dated 1996, they briefly show the Los Alamos silicon testing report on UFO hunters and it is dated 2009.
Here's an N.I.D.S test report I just found.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/Cas...cle.asp?ID=367
Another report, taken from a post by allegedly Dr. Gibbons on above top secret.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread159762/pg4
So from what I understand, this object is an aluminum alloy that closely resembles aluminum alloy 360 except for the absence of tin. According to New Mexico tech's comparative analysis, aluminum alloy 360 has 0.15% tin, so I'm not sure how significant this absence is.
Regarding the other two scientists that were interviewed on the UFO hunters episode, this is an overview of their findings.
http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/in..._-_May.2C_2009
But I will look into all that another day imo.
Edit: there are some interesting scanning electron microscope photos of the object and some analysis updates up to 1999 on the late Bob White's website here.
http://www.hardevidence.info/analysis.php
Ok so, so far it looks like there's been some conflict between reports.
Here's a video of an episode of UFO hunters and it has interviews with Bob White, Dr. Robert Gibbons, and two other scientists who I have yet to try to find some back ground on.
First of all, for formality, Dr. Robert Gibbons was born in Springfield, MO on February 6, 1943, has a Bachelor's Degree in Physics from Drury University, Springfield MO, and he did two years of graduate work at the University of Arkansas Graduate Institute of Technology, working towards a Master of Science degree in Instrumental Sciences. In 1976, he was awarded an LHD from St. Xavier's College in India.
Now, Bob White was born March 26, 1931 in Jackson County, MO. In September, 2000, Bob and his partner Larry Cekander opened the Museum of the Unexplained in Reeds Spring, MO with Bob as its director.
http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/in..._-_May.2C_2009
Robert Gibbons served as Executive Director of the Museum of the Unexplained in Reeds Spring, MO.
http://www.gibbonsresearch.com/aboutus.html
I can't find where I read it right now, but apparently the Museum of the unexplained was opened in what used to be a video rental store, and it was subsequently turned into a pool hall and the Museum of the unexplained was lodged in a 42 foot tour bus which drove cross country. That I can find!
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/4209
Another interesting note. Apparently Bob White sued Gibbons for unpaid telephone bills and they both appeared on the court television show Judge Joe Brown to settle their dispute. (I didn't find any clips of the show on youtube but I think someone posted a link to the audio on above top secret)
A post on above top secret allegedly from Dr. Gibbons himself regarding it:
Quote:
Since I was one of the two litigants on the Judge Joe Brown show, I have first-hand knowledge on the outcome, and Bob White didn't loose--I did. Bob sued me in Stone County, MO court for unpaid telephone bills when I was forced to leave the Museum of the Unexplained in Reeds Spring, MO. I sued Bob for unpaid professional services for scientific tests on Bob's metallic object and work on his book UFO HARD EVIDENCE, published by Galde Press, Inc. He sued me for $3000 and I sued him for $3000. The case was litigated on the Judge Joe Brown television show. The ruling was that Bob got $1000 of his $3000 lawsuit against me and I was exempt from paying the money. I haven't talked to Bob since we did the show, so I don't know if he got his money or not. Dr. Robert H. Gibbons
Now, onto the object itself and the testing that's been done on it.
In the UFO hunters video, Dr. Gibbons appeared with Bob White (surprising right?
) and both are interviewed by the team of UFO hunters. Gibbons describes their observances of the object affecting wall safes, it had allegedly drained the safe batteries and they had to drill open the safe. Gibbons then describes how he tested the object for x-rays or gamma rays by making a cylinder, placing the object within and placing dental x-ray film at the top and bottom and on the sides for 48 hours and something caused the film to expose. It left two black marks on the film. What this tells us about the object I have no idea. I'll leave it up to you to determine the objectivity of Dr. Gibbons and the significance of this test.
Then Bob White talks about how he first sent the object to New Mexico tech and mentions a couple people's names who are bleeped out. According to White, one of the Doctors said "had I known the story on this I would have suggested you do isotopic ratio abundance tests because we don't have the equipment here to perform these tests." White then talks about how he contacts arranged to go to Los Alamos where he met the top metallurgist (name bleeped out) and another doctor (name also bleeped out) who was called in for special occasions. White continues "and he was really excited about this cause he never seen anything like it before. He said to me 'this is something I've been looking for my all my life, this is definitely extra terrestrial."
White then goes on talking about how they have a Los Alamos report on silicon and he thought they were supposed to do the isotopic tests and the one bleeped out doctor tells him he'll have to talk to the other bleeped out doctor about it. The other bleeped out doctor says they didn't do any isotopic tests at all on it.
Bob White alleges that the Los Alamos scientists that did the testing were lying to him.
I've found this so far on the New Mexico tech testing. I believe this is a comparison between the Bob White object and aluminum alloy 360.
http://www.greatdreams.com/ufos/ufo_metal.htm
This is a copy of the Los Alamos report that I found on above top secret, allegedly provided to a poster by Larry Cekander.
Now I'm not sure if that's the same Los Alamos report that White talked about on UFO hunters cause it looks like they did isotopic tests here. Also, this report is dated 1996, they briefly show the Los Alamos silicon testing report on UFO hunters and it is dated 2009.
Here's an N.I.D.S test report I just found.
Quote:
NIDS Analysis Of Bob White Metal Piece
Source: Colm Kelleher, Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS)
Summary: Mr. White, a Missouri resident, provided the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) a piece of material that he purportedly obtained under unusual circumstances. Since the material had not been previously tested, NIDS decided to have a battery of tests conducted.
Analysis of Metal Sample
Mr. White, a Missouri resident, provided the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) a piece of material that he purportedly obtained under unusual circumstances.
Since the material had not been previously tested, NIDS decided to have a battery of tests conducted. The material was delivered to New Mexico Tech, and the tests were conducted under the direction of Dr. Paul Fuierer, an Assistant Professor in the Materials Engineering Department. On August 23, 1996, Dr. Fuierer submitted his analysis, Sample Analysis Report: Sample #2.
The analysis were double blinded. The following is the entire text of the report. No conclusions are made by NIDS.
Sample Description
Sample #2 in its as-received condition can be described as a finger-shaped piece of metal approximately 30 mm long, 7 mm thick, 18 mm wide at its larger end and 10 mm wide at the smaller end. The interior of the specimen is silver-white in color, and highly reflecting. The outside surface has a tarnished, darker gray appearance with overlapping scale-like features. The sample mass was 5.11524 g.
Chemical Analysis
A semi-quantitative elemental analysis was obtained using a Philips 2400 X-ray Fluorescence (wavelength dispersive) Spectrometer. A scan of the entire bulk sample identified as major constituents: 85 wt % A1 and 9 wt % Si, and minor constituents: 2 wt% Fe, 0.9 wt% Ca, 0.7 wt% S, 0.6 wt% C1, and 0.6 wt% Na along with several other elements (see Table I). This was in agreement with the qualitative analysis done via Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) during the electron microscopy investigation (next section), which detected aluminum, silicon, and iron. In terms of its chemical composition, sample #2 appears to be similar to what is known as a "360 aluminum casting alloy".
Phase Identification
An X-ray diffraction scan was performed on a slice of the sample with an area of about 1 cm^2. The diffraction pattern is shown in Fig. 1. A13.21Si0.47 is seen to be an excellent match. This composition calculates to 86.8 wt% A1 and 13.2 wt% Si, very close to that of sample #2. The four largest peaks are attributed to the aluminum metal, while the three small peaks (d = 3.1349, d = 1.9221, and d = 1.6375) are due to the presence of silicon. The aluminum peaks are shifted slightly to lower angles and larger d-spacings, as a result of the incorporation of a small amount of other larger metallic impurities into the lattice. The sample can therefore be described as a two-phase mixture of an aluminum solid solution as the majority phase, and silicon as a minor phase. This is in agreement with the equilibrium phase diagram for the Al-Si binary system, shown in Fig. 2. The composition of sample #2 is close to the eutectic composition, which is the composition have the lowest melting point (12.6 % Si according to the published phase diagram).
Microstructural Analysis
Scanning Electron Micropcopy (SEM)
The same slice of sample used for XRD was prepared by grinding and polishing to a mirror finish, followed by etching with 0.5% HF acid for 40 sec. Examination under the electron microscope revealed the microstructure to be quite uniform throughout the sample. Fig. 3 shows low and high magnification shots of the prepared surface. The sample contained a large amount of porosity (darker areas are pits and voids). Also apparent are the small particles (tenths of microns in size) surrounded by the continuous matrix material. EDS revealed the small, light particles to be silicon rich, while the darker gray matrix is Al-rich, as expected (see Fig. 4).
Optical Microscopy
Two samples were cut for metallographic examination; one sliced perpendicular to the length of the sample, and one parallel. These sections were also ground, polished and etched with 0.5% HF. Fig. 5 shows a couple of low mag shots of the parallel sample. The high porosity is very apparent, along with the very fine microstructure. Flow lines are also apparent in these two shots. The coarse ones are easy to see, outlined by the porosity. A more subtle flow line can be seen in the 250X shot upon close examination, defined only by a slight difference in the density of the darker particles on either side. These kinds of flow lines are commonly observed in poor sand or die castings. These are caused by a failure of molten streams of metal to merge due to poor filling of a mold, incorrect die lubrication or incorrect injection pressures.
Only under 1000X magnification can one start to pick out individual black particles (Fig. 6). These tiny black particles are the same Si particles seen under the SEM as light particles. Unfortunately, sub-micron sized features approach the theoretical limit of resolution for a light microscope, and therefore do not reveal themselves very clearly. However, they seem to have grouped together in certain locations to form longer bands, either straight or curved. These are probably dislocations (highly strained defects in the Al lattice) where precipitation of a second phase often occurs.
The fine microstructure observed in sample #2 is exactly what one might expect from a near eutectic composition of the Al and Si with a significant amount of impurities. Since the eutectic is rich in aluminum, one would predict an Al-rich solid solution matrix with isolated particles of silicon.....just what we have. The fact that the Si particles are spheroidized (essentially equiaxed spherical particles) as opposed to the classic eutectic lamellar shape (elongated plates or needles) can be explained by the significant quantity of impurities like Na, Mg, etc. These are regarded as modifiers in metal alloy technology, which alter surface energies and affect the morphology of the second phase silicon.
Putting all of the above microstructural observations together, one can surmise that the metal was being deformed (pushed or blown) as it cooled from the molten state through the eutectic temperature (~ 577 degrees C) and solidified. It probably cooled fairly rapidly since the Si particles are rather small. Also the alloy may have been undercooled such that excess Si was left in solid solution, and then later precipitated out at the dislocations during either normal or artificial aging.
Physical Properties
Density
Bulk density of the sample was measured based on the Archimedes Principle by immersion in toluene. The mass, while immersed, increased over a long period of time, finally stabilizing after 3 hours, indicative of a highly porous sample. The density of sample #2 was calculated to be 2.47 g/cm^3. This is 91% of that of the theoretical density of pure A1 (2.71 g/cm^3). This is not surprising, considering the presence of undisolved silicon (2.33 g/cm^3) and significant amount of void space observed under the microscope.
Hardness
The same samples (both perpendicular and parallel cuts) used for optical microscopy were used to measure hardness. A Vickers Hardness number was obtained from a Leco Tester using a diamond tip micro-indenter. Five indentations were made for each sample. The size of the resulting indentations were measured under the light microscope, and averaged. This average value, along with the known applied load were used to come up with the Vicker's Hardness number. For the perpendicular cut, VH = 60. For the parallel cut, VH = 62. The difference is probably within experimental error. These values are slightly higher than pure aluminum, and typical for aluminum alloys.
Stiffness
An attempt was made to prepare a specimen for measuring the strength and stiffness (elastic modulus) of sample #2 using an Instron machine, however; the sample proved to be to small.
Electrical Properties
A four-point probe must be used for accurate measurement for highly conducting materials like metals. For this, a rectangular slab sample was cut and polished to dimensions: length = 11.16 mm, width = 3.36 mm, and thickness = 0.38 mm. A digital multimeter was used to measure the current (provided by a constant current source) through the length of the sample, while an electrometer was used to measure the voltage drop (to the nearest 0.00001 V) across a length of the slab. The resistivity of sample #2 was measured to be 2.90 x 10^-5 Ohm-cm. This is about an order of magnitude higher than that of pure aluminum (3 x 10^-6 Ohm-cm) and five times higher than that of 360 Al alloy (6x10^-6 Ohm-cm). This is completely reasonable, considering the large number of Si particles, dislocation lines, and amount of porosity.
Summary and Conclusions
Results from the analysis of sample #2 are quite conclusive. The specimen is an aluminum-silicon alloy, with a substantial amount of variety of impurities, including iron, calcium, sulfur, chlorine, sodium, magnesium and others. The composition is one that could be used as an aluminum casting alloy. The closest commercial material has the trade name "360 alloy" [Lyman, 1961]. This is a die casting alloy used in applications where excellent castability and resistance to corrosion are required. It is used for miscellaneous thin-walled and intricate castings. Since this type of alloy is very close to the eutectic (lowest melting) composition, it has excellent fluidity at relatively low temperatures.
The microstructure of the sample is one to be expected from the composition: second phase eutectic silicon particles in a matrix of aluminum solid solution. However, due to a few undesirable structural characteristics, it would be regarded as a poorly cast aluminum alloy when compared with published micrographs of commercial materials [Lyman, 1972]. The large amount of porosity would certainly lead to a decreased strength and decreased corrosion resistance. The presence of porosity together with the apparent flow lines suggests that uncontrolled cooling took place. The significant amount of impurities like sodium accounts for the fineness and rounded nature of the silicon particles, rather than the larger, longer, more angular particules usually observed. Dislocations (planes of slip caused by plastic deformation) appear to be decorated by silicon particles. In many cases, these dislocations follow the flow lines. This suggests some forced flow during solidification of the melt (in the range of temperatures 600 degrees C to 575 degrees C).
There are no anomalies in the results of this analysis. The detected phases are accounted for, and the microstructure lends itself to standard metallurgical interpretation. The physical properties that were measured (density, hardness, and electrical resistivity) all fall within the expected range.
References
Lyman, T. (editor), "Properties and Selection of Metals", Vol. 1 in Metals Handbook, American Society for Metals (1961).
Lyman, T. (editor), "Atlas of Microstructures of Industrial Alloys", Vol. 7 in Metals Handbook, American Society for Metals (1972).
Lyman, T. (editor), "Metallography, Structures and Phase Diagrams", Vol. 8 in Metals Handbook, American Society for Metals (1973).
Mondolfo, L.R., Aluminum Alloys: Structure and Properties, Butterworth Inc. (1976).
Source: Colm Kelleher, Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS)
Summary: Mr. White, a Missouri resident, provided the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) a piece of material that he purportedly obtained under unusual circumstances. Since the material had not been previously tested, NIDS decided to have a battery of tests conducted.
Analysis of Metal Sample
Mr. White, a Missouri resident, provided the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) a piece of material that he purportedly obtained under unusual circumstances.
Since the material had not been previously tested, NIDS decided to have a battery of tests conducted. The material was delivered to New Mexico Tech, and the tests were conducted under the direction of Dr. Paul Fuierer, an Assistant Professor in the Materials Engineering Department. On August 23, 1996, Dr. Fuierer submitted his analysis, Sample Analysis Report: Sample #2.
The analysis were double blinded. The following is the entire text of the report. No conclusions are made by NIDS.
Sample Description
Sample #2 in its as-received condition can be described as a finger-shaped piece of metal approximately 30 mm long, 7 mm thick, 18 mm wide at its larger end and 10 mm wide at the smaller end. The interior of the specimen is silver-white in color, and highly reflecting. The outside surface has a tarnished, darker gray appearance with overlapping scale-like features. The sample mass was 5.11524 g.
Chemical Analysis
A semi-quantitative elemental analysis was obtained using a Philips 2400 X-ray Fluorescence (wavelength dispersive) Spectrometer. A scan of the entire bulk sample identified as major constituents: 85 wt % A1 and 9 wt % Si, and minor constituents: 2 wt% Fe, 0.9 wt% Ca, 0.7 wt% S, 0.6 wt% C1, and 0.6 wt% Na along with several other elements (see Table I). This was in agreement with the qualitative analysis done via Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) during the electron microscopy investigation (next section), which detected aluminum, silicon, and iron. In terms of its chemical composition, sample #2 appears to be similar to what is known as a "360 aluminum casting alloy".
Phase Identification
An X-ray diffraction scan was performed on a slice of the sample with an area of about 1 cm^2. The diffraction pattern is shown in Fig. 1. A13.21Si0.47 is seen to be an excellent match. This composition calculates to 86.8 wt% A1 and 13.2 wt% Si, very close to that of sample #2. The four largest peaks are attributed to the aluminum metal, while the three small peaks (d = 3.1349, d = 1.9221, and d = 1.6375) are due to the presence of silicon. The aluminum peaks are shifted slightly to lower angles and larger d-spacings, as a result of the incorporation of a small amount of other larger metallic impurities into the lattice. The sample can therefore be described as a two-phase mixture of an aluminum solid solution as the majority phase, and silicon as a minor phase. This is in agreement with the equilibrium phase diagram for the Al-Si binary system, shown in Fig. 2. The composition of sample #2 is close to the eutectic composition, which is the composition have the lowest melting point (12.6 % Si according to the published phase diagram).
Microstructural Analysis
Scanning Electron Micropcopy (SEM)
The same slice of sample used for XRD was prepared by grinding and polishing to a mirror finish, followed by etching with 0.5% HF acid for 40 sec. Examination under the electron microscope revealed the microstructure to be quite uniform throughout the sample. Fig. 3 shows low and high magnification shots of the prepared surface. The sample contained a large amount of porosity (darker areas are pits and voids). Also apparent are the small particles (tenths of microns in size) surrounded by the continuous matrix material. EDS revealed the small, light particles to be silicon rich, while the darker gray matrix is Al-rich, as expected (see Fig. 4).
Optical Microscopy
Two samples were cut for metallographic examination; one sliced perpendicular to the length of the sample, and one parallel. These sections were also ground, polished and etched with 0.5% HF. Fig. 5 shows a couple of low mag shots of the parallel sample. The high porosity is very apparent, along with the very fine microstructure. Flow lines are also apparent in these two shots. The coarse ones are easy to see, outlined by the porosity. A more subtle flow line can be seen in the 250X shot upon close examination, defined only by a slight difference in the density of the darker particles on either side. These kinds of flow lines are commonly observed in poor sand or die castings. These are caused by a failure of molten streams of metal to merge due to poor filling of a mold, incorrect die lubrication or incorrect injection pressures.
Only under 1000X magnification can one start to pick out individual black particles (Fig. 6). These tiny black particles are the same Si particles seen under the SEM as light particles. Unfortunately, sub-micron sized features approach the theoretical limit of resolution for a light microscope, and therefore do not reveal themselves very clearly. However, they seem to have grouped together in certain locations to form longer bands, either straight or curved. These are probably dislocations (highly strained defects in the Al lattice) where precipitation of a second phase often occurs.
The fine microstructure observed in sample #2 is exactly what one might expect from a near eutectic composition of the Al and Si with a significant amount of impurities. Since the eutectic is rich in aluminum, one would predict an Al-rich solid solution matrix with isolated particles of silicon.....just what we have. The fact that the Si particles are spheroidized (essentially equiaxed spherical particles) as opposed to the classic eutectic lamellar shape (elongated plates or needles) can be explained by the significant quantity of impurities like Na, Mg, etc. These are regarded as modifiers in metal alloy technology, which alter surface energies and affect the morphology of the second phase silicon.
Putting all of the above microstructural observations together, one can surmise that the metal was being deformed (pushed or blown) as it cooled from the molten state through the eutectic temperature (~ 577 degrees C) and solidified. It probably cooled fairly rapidly since the Si particles are rather small. Also the alloy may have been undercooled such that excess Si was left in solid solution, and then later precipitated out at the dislocations during either normal or artificial aging.
Physical Properties
Density
Bulk density of the sample was measured based on the Archimedes Principle by immersion in toluene. The mass, while immersed, increased over a long period of time, finally stabilizing after 3 hours, indicative of a highly porous sample. The density of sample #2 was calculated to be 2.47 g/cm^3. This is 91% of that of the theoretical density of pure A1 (2.71 g/cm^3). This is not surprising, considering the presence of undisolved silicon (2.33 g/cm^3) and significant amount of void space observed under the microscope.
Hardness
The same samples (both perpendicular and parallel cuts) used for optical microscopy were used to measure hardness. A Vickers Hardness number was obtained from a Leco Tester using a diamond tip micro-indenter. Five indentations were made for each sample. The size of the resulting indentations were measured under the light microscope, and averaged. This average value, along with the known applied load were used to come up with the Vicker's Hardness number. For the perpendicular cut, VH = 60. For the parallel cut, VH = 62. The difference is probably within experimental error. These values are slightly higher than pure aluminum, and typical for aluminum alloys.
Stiffness
An attempt was made to prepare a specimen for measuring the strength and stiffness (elastic modulus) of sample #2 using an Instron machine, however; the sample proved to be to small.
Electrical Properties
A four-point probe must be used for accurate measurement for highly conducting materials like metals. For this, a rectangular slab sample was cut and polished to dimensions: length = 11.16 mm, width = 3.36 mm, and thickness = 0.38 mm. A digital multimeter was used to measure the current (provided by a constant current source) through the length of the sample, while an electrometer was used to measure the voltage drop (to the nearest 0.00001 V) across a length of the slab. The resistivity of sample #2 was measured to be 2.90 x 10^-5 Ohm-cm. This is about an order of magnitude higher than that of pure aluminum (3 x 10^-6 Ohm-cm) and five times higher than that of 360 Al alloy (6x10^-6 Ohm-cm). This is completely reasonable, considering the large number of Si particles, dislocation lines, and amount of porosity.
Summary and Conclusions
Results from the analysis of sample #2 are quite conclusive. The specimen is an aluminum-silicon alloy, with a substantial amount of variety of impurities, including iron, calcium, sulfur, chlorine, sodium, magnesium and others. The composition is one that could be used as an aluminum casting alloy. The closest commercial material has the trade name "360 alloy" [Lyman, 1961]. This is a die casting alloy used in applications where excellent castability and resistance to corrosion are required. It is used for miscellaneous thin-walled and intricate castings. Since this type of alloy is very close to the eutectic (lowest melting) composition, it has excellent fluidity at relatively low temperatures.
The microstructure of the sample is one to be expected from the composition: second phase eutectic silicon particles in a matrix of aluminum solid solution. However, due to a few undesirable structural characteristics, it would be regarded as a poorly cast aluminum alloy when compared with published micrographs of commercial materials [Lyman, 1972]. The large amount of porosity would certainly lead to a decreased strength and decreased corrosion resistance. The presence of porosity together with the apparent flow lines suggests that uncontrolled cooling took place. The significant amount of impurities like sodium accounts for the fineness and rounded nature of the silicon particles, rather than the larger, longer, more angular particules usually observed. Dislocations (planes of slip caused by plastic deformation) appear to be decorated by silicon particles. In many cases, these dislocations follow the flow lines. This suggests some forced flow during solidification of the melt (in the range of temperatures 600 degrees C to 575 degrees C).
There are no anomalies in the results of this analysis. The detected phases are accounted for, and the microstructure lends itself to standard metallurgical interpretation. The physical properties that were measured (density, hardness, and electrical resistivity) all fall within the expected range.
References
Lyman, T. (editor), "Properties and Selection of Metals", Vol. 1 in Metals Handbook, American Society for Metals (1961).
Lyman, T. (editor), "Atlas of Microstructures of Industrial Alloys", Vol. 7 in Metals Handbook, American Society for Metals (1972).
Lyman, T. (editor), "Metallography, Structures and Phase Diagrams", Vol. 8 in Metals Handbook, American Society for Metals (1973).
Mondolfo, L.R., Aluminum Alloys: Structure and Properties, Butterworth Inc. (1976).
Another report, taken from a post by allegedly Dr. Gibbons on above top secret.
Quote:
Here is the complete report from Joe Fandrich of Mesa State College in Grand Junction, CO paid for by Flame TV for "Jane Goldman Investigates". Fandrich refused to believe Bob's story how he found it, but believed where he found it. That's not good science. Dr. Robert H. Gibbons
Bob White’s Unusual Object April 2, 2004
Joe W. Fandrich Planetary Research Geologist, Mesa State College, Grand Junction, CO
INTRODUCTION
On Sunday, March 28, 2004 Mr. Bob White presented me with an unusual object for my inspection. The object is tear-drop shaped, approximately 28.5 cm long, 8.0 cm around at its greatest diameter and tapers to approximately 1.0 cm in diameter. The object’s surface exhibits a “feathered” pattern. The object has bilateral symmetry through the long axis when oriented with the most rounded side either up or down. With the mosted rounded side down and when observing the object from the front, this symmetry is obvious with two distinguishable nodes present on the top of the object.
The object has been cut by saw near the front (greatest diameter) and at its tail (smallest diameter) by Los Alamos National Laboratory, December 11, 1996. Various laboratories have made studies of this object and have determined its metallurgy, quantitative and qualitative chemistry, density, etc.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this investigation is to present a non-prejudicial scientific examination of the Bob White object and to present viable explanations based upon fact for its existence as we see it today.
METHODS
1. Cursory physical examination of the whole object in question and hearing of Bob White’s experience in collecting the object, with follow-up study of previous documentation and study of a section cut from the tail only of the object under a metallurgical microscope “(March 28, 2004);
2. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) observation of the microscopic character of the object’s tail surface under high power (three micrographs were taken under various powers);
3. Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) analysis of the object with a qualitative chemistry result of the object’s primary elemental constituents; thee locations on the object were tested to determine any differences that might exist from previous work accomplished bhy other labs, and
4. Application of physical laws as a factual representation of the creation of the object with the elemental chemistry and physics as confining parameters.
RESULTS OF TESTING AND OBSERVATIONS
Detailed Optical Microscopy
The surface of the aluminum object is ornamented by melt particle migration “feathers”. These feathers are actually thousands of minute tails that have resulted from molten aluminum migrating from the frontal
area of the primary object to the rear and ultimately forming a tail. This process of melt material migration began as the object’s surface temperatures came greater than +/- 600 degrees C or about the
temperature that can be attained in a common household oven. The increase in surface temperature of the object is a result of friction developed as the object passed through a gaseous atmosphere at high
velocity. At +/- 600 degrees C ablation of the primary object begins and melt material migration toward the tail is initiated. The presence of the feathered surface, a tail and an ablation ring support this observation.
SEM/EDS Observtions--Dr. Richard C. Dujay, Center for Microscopy, Mesa State College
A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to observe the outer physical surface of the Al object. The qualitative chemistry chemistry of the object was determined by energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS).
SEM micrographs (three) were collected and given to Bob White’s group. EDS was performed and the qualitative chemistry was determined.
SEM observations were determined to support the hypothesis of external melt of the AL object. EDS chemistry reconfirmed the object to be primarily aluminum (Al), Silicon (Si), and iron (Fe).
Discussion--Object Provenance: A Glaring Omission by Previous Studies
The Bob White object is the result of deformation of a primary aluminum casting (part). This casting was designed and manufactured by molding a common alloy identified as a “360 aluminum casting alloy” (determined by previous lab. work). This alloy is not present as a naturally occurring metal. This object was not entirely molten while the melt migration “feathers” were being formed. Only the exterior frontal portion of the primary casting was ablated and melted. This casting (i.e. part) experienced a high velocity passage through an atmosphere. This high velocity passage caused heating of the Al object, ablation and erosion of the primary part’s frontal area, development of the feathered surface as a result of melting aluminum from the primary object and ablation ring, and cretion of the long tail of the object as observed today.
Conclusions--A Summary of Probabilities and Possibilities
This unusual aluminum object was discovered on the Earth’s surface. How it arrived at the surface or how it became the property of Bob White is not important to this investigation. However, it is important to note that this object has been severely altered from its original shape by high velocity atmospheric friction and formed into the tear-drop shape we observe today by passage through an atmosphere. Probabilities of the history of this object range from the purposeful distruction of an off-course test
missile from the Green River Missile Range, Green River, Utah, to the atmospheric breakup and frictional disintegration of an Earth-orbiting staellite. These scenarios would explain the 360 aluminum casting alloy as well as the description of Bob White’s observations during the object’s discovery. The possibility that the object is the product of a failed high-voltage electric transmission line has been suggested, however there are no such transmission lines in the area where this object was collected by
Bob White (i.e., the area described by Bob White near the Utah/Colorado state line on Highway 6 and 50). The radiation emitted by the object is not considered unusual as most objects in our universe emit radiation, including the human body. Whether or not this object is the result of other than a primarily terrestrial event is only to be entertained as conjecture. At this time and with the results of this and prior research, it is possible to state that this is a manufactured object hat does not exist naturally and that is the product of an explosion and/or high temperature velocity passage through an atmosphere, probably Earth’s, with frictionally induced alteration and associated exterior ornamentation (i.e., “feathered” tails)
Respectfully submitted April 26, 2004 Joe W. Fandrich
Figure 1. Aluminum object exhibiting a crude ablation ring, a feathered surface, and a typical tail developed by melt material migration from the front of the object (i.e., from right to left in this figure)
Figure 2. Frontal view of the aluminum object showing the bilaterial symmetry (right and left halves divided by a line between A and B), the melted outer “crust” and the inner (lighter) portion of the primary or original relatively unaltered portion of this object.
Figure 3. X-ray exposure (48 hours) performed by Robert H. Gibbons. This exposure supports the +/- bilateral symmetry of the primary object. The two dark areas represent the object’s casting pattern as observed from a frontal view. The casting formed a concentration of Aluminum 360 alloy which allowed for this exposure to concentrate these dark areas; the result of radiation emitted from the alloy.
Figure 4. Ablation ring (black outlines).
Here is the complete report from Joe Fandrich of Mesa State College in Grand Junction, CO paid for by Flame TV for "Jane Goldman Investigates". Fandrich refused to believe Bob's story how he found it, but believed where he found it. That's not good science. Dr. Robert H. Gibbons
Bob White’s Unusual Object April 2, 2004
Joe W. Fandrich Planetary Research Geologist, Mesa State College, Grand Junction, CO
INTRODUCTION
On Sunday, March 28, 2004 Mr. Bob White presented me with an unusual object for my inspection. The object is tear-drop shaped, approximately 28.5 cm long, 8.0 cm around at its greatest diameter and tapers to approximately 1.0 cm in diameter. The object’s surface exhibits a “feathered” pattern. The object has bilateral symmetry through the long axis when oriented with the most rounded side either up or down. With the mosted rounded side down and when observing the object from the front, this symmetry is obvious with two distinguishable nodes present on the top of the object.
The object has been cut by saw near the front (greatest diameter) and at its tail (smallest diameter) by Los Alamos National Laboratory, December 11, 1996. Various laboratories have made studies of this object and have determined its metallurgy, quantitative and qualitative chemistry, density, etc.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this investigation is to present a non-prejudicial scientific examination of the Bob White object and to present viable explanations based upon fact for its existence as we see it today.
METHODS
1. Cursory physical examination of the whole object in question and hearing of Bob White’s experience in collecting the object, with follow-up study of previous documentation and study of a section cut from the tail only of the object under a metallurgical microscope “(March 28, 2004);
2. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) observation of the microscopic character of the object’s tail surface under high power (three micrographs were taken under various powers);
3. Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) analysis of the object with a qualitative chemistry result of the object’s primary elemental constituents; thee locations on the object were tested to determine any differences that might exist from previous work accomplished bhy other labs, and
4. Application of physical laws as a factual representation of the creation of the object with the elemental chemistry and physics as confining parameters.
RESULTS OF TESTING AND OBSERVATIONS
Detailed Optical Microscopy
The surface of the aluminum object is ornamented by melt particle migration “feathers”. These feathers are actually thousands of minute tails that have resulted from molten aluminum migrating from the frontal
area of the primary object to the rear and ultimately forming a tail. This process of melt material migration began as the object’s surface temperatures came greater than +/- 600 degrees C or about the
temperature that can be attained in a common household oven. The increase in surface temperature of the object is a result of friction developed as the object passed through a gaseous atmosphere at high
velocity. At +/- 600 degrees C ablation of the primary object begins and melt material migration toward the tail is initiated. The presence of the feathered surface, a tail and an ablation ring support this observation.
SEM/EDS Observtions--Dr. Richard C. Dujay, Center for Microscopy, Mesa State College
A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to observe the outer physical surface of the Al object. The qualitative chemistry chemistry of the object was determined by energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS).
SEM micrographs (three) were collected and given to Bob White’s group. EDS was performed and the qualitative chemistry was determined.
SEM observations were determined to support the hypothesis of external melt of the AL object. EDS chemistry reconfirmed the object to be primarily aluminum (Al), Silicon (Si), and iron (Fe).
Discussion--Object Provenance: A Glaring Omission by Previous Studies
The Bob White object is the result of deformation of a primary aluminum casting (part). This casting was designed and manufactured by molding a common alloy identified as a “360 aluminum casting alloy” (determined by previous lab. work). This alloy is not present as a naturally occurring metal. This object was not entirely molten while the melt migration “feathers” were being formed. Only the exterior frontal portion of the primary casting was ablated and melted. This casting (i.e. part) experienced a high velocity passage through an atmosphere. This high velocity passage caused heating of the Al object, ablation and erosion of the primary part’s frontal area, development of the feathered surface as a result of melting aluminum from the primary object and ablation ring, and cretion of the long tail of the object as observed today.
Conclusions--A Summary of Probabilities and Possibilities
This unusual aluminum object was discovered on the Earth’s surface. How it arrived at the surface or how it became the property of Bob White is not important to this investigation. However, it is important to note that this object has been severely altered from its original shape by high velocity atmospheric friction and formed into the tear-drop shape we observe today by passage through an atmosphere. Probabilities of the history of this object range from the purposeful distruction of an off-course test
missile from the Green River Missile Range, Green River, Utah, to the atmospheric breakup and frictional disintegration of an Earth-orbiting staellite. These scenarios would explain the 360 aluminum casting alloy as well as the description of Bob White’s observations during the object’s discovery. The possibility that the object is the product of a failed high-voltage electric transmission line has been suggested, however there are no such transmission lines in the area where this object was collected by
Bob White (i.e., the area described by Bob White near the Utah/Colorado state line on Highway 6 and 50). The radiation emitted by the object is not considered unusual as most objects in our universe emit radiation, including the human body. Whether or not this object is the result of other than a primarily terrestrial event is only to be entertained as conjecture. At this time and with the results of this and prior research, it is possible to state that this is a manufactured object hat does not exist naturally and that is the product of an explosion and/or high temperature velocity passage through an atmosphere, probably Earth’s, with frictionally induced alteration and associated exterior ornamentation (i.e., “feathered” tails)
Respectfully submitted April 26, 2004 Joe W. Fandrich
Figure 1. Aluminum object exhibiting a crude ablation ring, a feathered surface, and a typical tail developed by melt material migration from the front of the object (i.e., from right to left in this figure)
Figure 2. Frontal view of the aluminum object showing the bilaterial symmetry (right and left halves divided by a line between A and B), the melted outer “crust” and the inner (lighter) portion of the primary or original relatively unaltered portion of this object.
Figure 3. X-ray exposure (48 hours) performed by Robert H. Gibbons. This exposure supports the +/- bilateral symmetry of the primary object. The two dark areas represent the object’s casting pattern as observed from a frontal view. The casting formed a concentration of Aluminum 360 alloy which allowed for this exposure to concentrate these dark areas; the result of radiation emitted from the alloy.
Figure 4. Ablation ring (black outlines).
So from what I understand, this object is an aluminum alloy that closely resembles aluminum alloy 360 except for the absence of tin. According to New Mexico tech's comparative analysis, aluminum alloy 360 has 0.15% tin, so I'm not sure how significant this absence is.
Regarding the other two scientists that were interviewed on the UFO hunters episode, this is an overview of their findings.
Quote:
Latest Research Findings - May, 2009
Physicist Chris Ellis, expert in solid state physics, aluminum alloys, and superconductors. Test result showed the object is an alloy of unknown origin. It is also his expert opinion that this is a manufactured alloy.
Research Scientist David Lamb, expert in physics and material science. Also works at a major US university. Findings were achieved using X-Ray Diffraction Analysis: The artifact showed an unique “amorphous peak and is a polycrystalline semiconductor”. To his knowledge this type of material is not found anywhere on Earth. Also there is silver concentration of 4.3%, here on Earth silver is used in this form by experimental scientist as a catalyst for a superconductor. It is sprayed over aluminum and thus is in small amounts as we see here from the test results. He postulated that this could be used on a craft as a way to dispel magnetic fields, especially in space as there is no energy expenditure needed for superconductivity. Lamb has further speculated that this artifact is in fact a “quasi-crystal of complex structure.” This is only in its early stages on Earth in the form of nanotechnology.
These results are current as of May 2009
Physicist Chris Ellis, expert in solid state physics, aluminum alloys, and superconductors. Test result showed the object is an alloy of unknown origin. It is also his expert opinion that this is a manufactured alloy.
Research Scientist David Lamb, expert in physics and material science. Also works at a major US university. Findings were achieved using X-Ray Diffraction Analysis: The artifact showed an unique “amorphous peak and is a polycrystalline semiconductor”. To his knowledge this type of material is not found anywhere on Earth. Also there is silver concentration of 4.3%, here on Earth silver is used in this form by experimental scientist as a catalyst for a superconductor. It is sprayed over aluminum and thus is in small amounts as we see here from the test results. He postulated that this could be used on a craft as a way to dispel magnetic fields, especially in space as there is no energy expenditure needed for superconductivity. Lamb has further speculated that this artifact is in fact a “quasi-crystal of complex structure.” This is only in its early stages on Earth in the form of nanotechnology.
These results are current as of May 2009
But I will look into all that another day imo.
Edit: there are some interesting scanning electron microscope photos of the object and some analysis updates up to 1999 on the late Bob White's website here.
http://www.hardevidence.info/analysis.php
Last edited by LirvA; 08-29-2010 at 07:43 AM.
08-31-2010
, 06:03 PM
08-31-2010
, 09:35 PM
08-31-2010
, 11:58 PM
Quote:
novelty theory. I like reading about fringe theories and normally I can quickly spot what's wrong with them but I'm flummoxed by this one. I don't mean to say I find it convincing at all - I just can't figure out WTF it's claiming in the first place, or what the method is. Anyone?
. Will equally try to figure out how he has thought, from his perspective, as you asked for.
Last edited by plaaynde; 09-01-2010 at 12:05 AM.
09-28-2010
, 05:23 AM
Quote:
Whats going on with these UFO's?
Personally, I have always been super-skeptic about UFO's being aliens. Most sightings/reports can usually be explained by natural phenomena/human-made flying objects/people with an agenda.
I still don't believe that UFO's are aliens.
HOWEVER
Even the great Stephen Hawking admitted to much speculation about aliens (although he doesn't seem to believe that they have visited earth).
I recently ran into some impressive (and believable) claims by some former USAF people (Robert Salas, Dwayne Arneson, Bill Jameson). They claim, that in the 1960s, UFO's were spotted by over two US Nuke bases, and at the same moment, multiple missiles shut down (16+, while more than one missile going down at once is unheard of).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ry-pilots.html
Apparently, 100+ former Air Force employees who were stationed at said bases have also come forward supporting these claims.
Here is a Larry King interview from 2008, he speaks with three former members of the USAF who make the impressive claims. Bill Nye arrives halfway and makes a skeptic's counter-argument:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0750642218392#
There was also a National Press Club UFO disclosure conference in Washington today, where several of the earlier-mentioned USAF men speak:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqzoC...layer_embedded
So what does this all mean? I think the most likely scenario is that these UFO's are secret military craft, not aliens. However, it would sure be fun to 'know' that aliens are sightseeing us. Are government agencies really covering aliens up?
The most interesting point that these former USAF men made (about the two missile incidents) was that the men charged with storing, guarding, and launching nuclear weapons either were drunk/hallucinating/pathological liars, OR they saw what they claim and the government covered it up.
What are your thoughts?
Personally, I have always been super-skeptic about UFO's being aliens. Most sightings/reports can usually be explained by natural phenomena/human-made flying objects/people with an agenda.
I still don't believe that UFO's are aliens.
HOWEVER
Even the great Stephen Hawking admitted to much speculation about aliens (although he doesn't seem to believe that they have visited earth).
I recently ran into some impressive (and believable) claims by some former USAF people (Robert Salas, Dwayne Arneson, Bill Jameson). They claim, that in the 1960s, UFO's were spotted by over two US Nuke bases, and at the same moment, multiple missiles shut down (16+, while more than one missile going down at once is unheard of).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ry-pilots.html
Apparently, 100+ former Air Force employees who were stationed at said bases have also come forward supporting these claims.
Here is a Larry King interview from 2008, he speaks with three former members of the USAF who make the impressive claims. Bill Nye arrives halfway and makes a skeptic's counter-argument:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0750642218392#
There was also a National Press Club UFO disclosure conference in Washington today, where several of the earlier-mentioned USAF men speak:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqzoC...layer_embedded
So what does this all mean? I think the most likely scenario is that these UFO's are secret military craft, not aliens. However, it would sure be fun to 'know' that aliens are sightseeing us. Are government agencies really covering aliens up?
The most interesting point that these former USAF men made (about the two missile incidents) was that the men charged with storing, guarding, and launching nuclear weapons either were drunk/hallucinating/pathological liars, OR they saw what they claim and the government covered it up.
What are your thoughts?
My thoughts are there are far more interesting and compelling incidents of the UFO phenomenon than the incident you mentioned. You're looking in the right direction (military) but simple eye witness testimony isn't very compelling or significant at all. (I'm a bit familiar with this indecent that is repeatedly brought up in these press conferences every year, but afaik they don't have any significant evidence, just what they say)
This brings me to my story. I used to work for the air force on a top secret project in Colorado Springs and I was part of a team of scientists trying to reverse engineer a downed extra terrestrial air craft. It had crashed in the mountains and we found it and there were even deceased passengers. No idea what happened to them, I wasn't part of that project, but I did work on the reverse engineering. You'll just have to believe what I say
The best cases are where military tracks objects on radar and scrambles jets to intercept. There's been several cases like that. If you're at all interested in the UFO phenomenon, check them out.
Things like "former air force personnel experienced ______" without any evidence to support it can be interesting stories and entertaining, but when it comes down to it, they're insignificant because there's no evidence. Therefor you should just move on.