Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Science, Math, and Philosophy Discussions regarding science, math, and/or philosophy.

View Poll Results: How would you want to go if the world had to end?
Zombie apocalypse 18 19.35%
Meteor collides into the earth 26 27.96%
Alien invasion 47 50.54%
Nuclear disaster, either from war or accident 2 2.15%
Voters: 93. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-18-2010, 11:37 AM   #151
11t
Bo Pelini's #1 Fan
 
11t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spewville
Posts: 30,998
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

i'm not arguing about ted.com but the moon landing thing

do you think we landed robots on mars? are we launching satellites into space? i mean, we can agree to disagree but your argument holds ~0 weight. landing on the moon isn't difficult, but it is expensive and very unsafe.

other countries don't go to the moon because it is a valueless activity beyond national pride.
11t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 11:49 AM   #152
ganstaman
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ganstaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: central nj
Posts: 9,601
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by donniccolo View Post
you are comparing dropping a massive life-taking atomic bomb to flying 300k miles to the moon? really?

if you have done any reading about the moon landings, you would know that the political climate in the 60s and 70s was not one that would've abruptly stopped the Apollo program w/ 3 missions still on the docket. it just didn't make sense.

also, see below re: budget. you state that its too expensive to go, yet the US still has "aspirations" to "return". also if its so expensive, why go SEVEN times?! why not six? or five? or eight?

Spoiler:


that is laughable! the US spends $ regardless of how expensive anything is. for a country in trillions of dollars of debt running over budget, $ is not an issue. besides that, the fact that they continue the space program at a huge expense and that they have planned and cancelled missions to the moon yet again, contradicts your statement that budget is an issue.
So can you prove that we dropped the atomic bombs or not?

So your theory is that we faked 6 moon landings and 1 failure and then abruptly stopped, even given the political climate at that time. How is that more sensible than those events being real?

Do you live in the US? We're making budget cuts all over the place here. Most people would be more willing to cut NASA funding than other programs because they can't see how it directly benefits them. There's no way they could push through a flight that had no value. And what would it even prove? How would you know that they aren't just faking again?
ganstaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 12:46 PM   #153
plaaynde
Poker Historian
 
plaaynde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rebel of Eden
Posts: 17,830
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

Lets bring the NASA UFO Footage in here!

fyp
plaaynde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 10:36 PM   #154
cixelsyD
journeyman
 
cixelsyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

** I need some help checking for physics misinterpretations** for my cardiac physiology paper, as I'm not really a physics person can you check that I understand. 
Quote:
The pressure at the left heart is 100mmHg and at the right heart its 1mmHg so the blood flows down its pressure gradient. So that means when the pressure is let’s say 35mmHg at the feet does that mean that the pressure difference allows blood to flow up to the heart? Also since I was young I held onto the conception that what the heart does is to push blood around the circuit, like a truck pushing another car. But in reality the heart is creating a pressure gradient by pressurising the blood, during contraction by squeezing the blood till it reaches a pressure that is higher than the pressure on the outside of the aortic valve. So in reality it is bringing the pressure of the blood in the ventricle to the same or slightly higher than the pressure at the base of the aorta, there is more pressure added to the blood after the valve opens as contraction is not finished yet. So the heart does not push blood it pressurises it.
cixelsyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 12:25 AM   #155
ganstaman
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ganstaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: central nj
Posts: 9,601
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by cixelsyD View Post
** I need some help checking for physics misinterpretations** for my cardiac physiology paper, as I'm not really a physics person can you check that I understand. 
Maybe I don't quite understand, but what's the difference between pushing something and pressurizing it?
ganstaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 12:34 AM   #156
cixelsyD
journeyman
 
cixelsyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganstaman View Post
Maybe I don't quite understand, but what's the difference between pushing something and pressurizing it?
That was my question (Is there are difference?) I guess there isn't.
cixelsyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 12:51 AM   #157
LirvA
self-banned
 
LirvA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Free Manning, Hammond, and Brown.
Posts: 42,857
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jupiter0 View Post
I used to think MUFON was a good objective organization. But I saw them on this UFO TV show on Sci Fi network and the whole investigative process these guys from MUFON went through was a joke and really disappointed me as far as real objective organizations being out there. They did hypnosis on this one guy and took it as fact.

And in this implant case they tested the metal for radio signals ? but they used hyper sensitive equipment that basically just was picking up low level normal frequencies that are always around. *facepalm*

And after they tested the metal its composition was all from earth. It was mostly carbon. But the dumb biased MUFON guy (also the veteran) was like OMG part of his skin attached to it after it had been in him X amount of years. This is not earthly! Something is going on here. Case not closed.

But anyway I actually agree with you that bc there is like 1 or 2% of all cases that go unexplained that there could be something else going on. I mean Project Blue Book alone is pretty interesting ESPECIALLY considering lol the intent of it was to "debunk" ALL cases and they couldn't even debunk all of them. Anyway, I just wish there was more objective organizations out there...maybe there are i don't follow ufology anymore. anyway i guess if this discussions continues we should take it to the fringe conspiracy or whatev thread.

Where did you find that info on the implant?

The info I know about the case I heard on this video. (actually 8 of 10 - continuation of Roger Leir and then Dr. Alex Moser talks about the tests they did on it - Moser continues through the next two vids)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBJiz...eature=related

The only thing I've found so far about Moser is he is Senior Member of Technical Staff at YTC America INC. the North American corporate research and development center of Yazaki Corporation
http://www.ytca.com/homepage
http://www.yazaki.com/index.htm

aorn I don't know what they do, something with automobile manufacturing it looks like, on the first site it lists carbon nanotubes under current activities (no idea what that is) and in that youtube video he talks about carbon nanotubes in the implant object.

It looks like Moser got his PH.d (physical chemistry) in 1998 at the University of Nebraska
http://www.chem.unl.edu/dept/phd.shtml

Will keep looking around imo.
LirvA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 01:27 AM   #158
Jupiter0
old hand
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: awaiting Skynet
Posts: 1,359
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

oh, I was just on a rant about how bad MUFON was. Your link mentioned MUFON as basically instigating the investigation etc. sorry if i confused you. that whole post i was talking about another implant case and another I saw on TV that MUFON did a sketchy job of investigating and that is partly why i don't believe they have any credibility. anyway, this begs the questions

Bob was referred to the National Institute of Discovery Science (N.I.D.S.) by the UFO organization MUFONs researcher Dr. John Carpenter after attending a UFO Conference in Eureka Springs, AR. In 1996, Bob sent a piece of his UFO object to N.I.D.S. who hired the lab at New Mexico Tech to conduct a metallurgical analysis. The scope of this analysis was limited, as explained to Bob by the New Mexico Tech scientist following its completion.

All that tells me none of this was really objective. HE payed for the lab and might have co opted them to report his bias into their findings on the metal. There's just conflict of interest all over this. Also, MUFON being there at the beginning raises red flags to me. Anyway, I'm just giving my opinion to help u. mostly i was just ranting in early post about my disappointment with ufology in general as objective bc of how i now view mufon.
Jupiter0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 01:36 AM   #159
LirvA
self-banned
 
LirvA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Free Manning, Hammond, and Brown.
Posts: 42,857
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

did Carpenter, White, or the N.I.D.S hire the lab?

From reading that it looks like the N.I.D.S. did imo.


edit: looks like it was Bob White.


Quote:
White said he spent nearly $200,000 to have the two-pound metallic object analyzed by laboratories.

Last edited by LirvA; 08-29-2010 at 01:45 AM.
LirvA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 07:32 AM   #160
LirvA
self-banned
 
LirvA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Free Manning, Hammond, and Brown.
Posts: 42,857
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

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:

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
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.

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).
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/Cas...cle.asp?ID=367


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).
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.

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
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

Last edited by LirvA; 08-29-2010 at 07:43 AM.
LirvA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 08:24 AM   #161
LirvA
self-banned
 
LirvA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Free Manning, Hammond, and Brown.
Posts: 42,857
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

I want to mention this.


It pisses me off that UFO hunters and the History channel present Robert Gibbons as an authoritative, objective NASA scientist. He was a freakin business partner with Bob White ffs.

His academic credentials are pretty unimpressive to me and from what I can tell, the only thing he ever did through NASA was publish a thesis.
LirvA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 01:50 PM   #162
guesswest
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,998
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

So having had the misfortune of watching 2012 the movie the other night I ended up on the 2012 wiki page, and discovered this: 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?
guesswest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 02:03 PM   #163
plaaynde
Poker Historian
 
plaaynde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rebel of Eden
Posts: 17,830
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by guesswest View Post
So having had the misfortune of watching 2012 the movie the other night I ended up on the 2012 wiki page, and discovered this: 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?


Cliff:
Quote:
it is a parody. It is not a scientific theory, nor is it a pseudo-scientific theory -- it is a parody of a scientific theory.
plaaynde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 02:06 PM   #164
guesswest
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,998
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by plaaynde View Post
Cliff:
Yeah I read that. The author certainly doesn't claim it's a parody. I'm quite sure it's bollocks don't get me wrong, it's just normally I'd look at the premises and see if they were sound, then the reasoning following from the premises etc - but I can't figure out wtf he's talking about at all, and I assume he does have some kind of reasoning.
guesswest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 02:14 PM   #165
plaaynde
Poker Historian
 
plaaynde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rebel of Eden
Posts: 17,830
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by guesswest View Post
Yeah I read that. The author certainly doesn't claim it's a parody. I'm quite sure it's bollocks don't get me wrong, it's just normally I'd look at the premises and see if they were sound, then the reasoning following from the premises etc - but I can't figure out wtf he's talking about at all, and I assume he does have some kind of reasoning.
Could his reasoning have religious tones? He is the preacher. He wants to be special. He likes to mock traditional science, its not enough for him. He combines things freely, believing thats creative, and will lead humanity towards the light of true knowledge.
plaaynde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 06:03 PM   #166
All-In Flynn
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
All-In Flynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 10,923
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

If it involves or references Terence McKenna, you're going to see a lot of horribly misunderstood evolution stuff. I mean horribly. Like "psilocybin is the accelerant of evolution; take mushrooms if you want to evolve more" horrible. From the description in the first paragraph, it seems like 'novelty' may be what the author imagines evolution 'makes more of'.

Edit: Looks like I'm a little off there, though he still squoze in shrooms somehow, the wonderful old loon.

Double edit: "...the universe is a living system with a teleological attractor at the end of time that drives the increase and conservation of complexity in material forms. "

So it looks like I was actually pretty close. Go me, I guess.

Last edited by All-In Flynn; 08-31-2010 at 06:12 PM.
All-In Flynn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 08:37 PM   #167
guesswest
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,998
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn View Post
"...the universe is a living system with a teleological attractor at the end of time that drives the increase and conservation of complexity in material forms. "
This seems to be the summary version, but while I know what all those words mean I don't have the first clue what he is saying. What is a teleological attractor? What is the end of time? What is complexity in material forms?
guesswest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 09:35 PM   #168
All-In Flynn
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
All-In Flynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 10,923
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by guesswest View Post
This seems to be the summary version, but while I know what all those words mean I don't have the first clue what he is saying. What is a teleological attractor? What is the end of time? What is complexity in material forms?
A 'teleological attractor' would, I guess, be some kind of 'purposefulness magnet'? The end of time = the end of the universe. Complexity in material forms = hydrogen => helium => rest of PT => life => intelligence => ??? => Profit!

In short, it doesn't mean anything, but what it's trying to mean is that there's this big whooshy thing in the future that's reaching back through time and making evolution (and really cool number patterns, whoooooah) happen. From what I can make out.
All-In Flynn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 11:58 PM   #169
plaaynde
Poker Historian
 
plaaynde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rebel of Eden
Posts: 17,830
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by guesswest View Post
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?
Beware, Im planning to actually print out at least the wiki page on this, and then I will go on debunking it, part by part, pointing out, with the best of my skills, where hes wrong. Will find some peculiar pleasure doing it. . 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.
plaaynde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 12:33 AM   #170
plaaynde
Poker Historian
 
plaaynde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rebel of Eden
Posts: 17,830
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

Edit:
Sorry, my printer didnt work properly and I just found out better things to do, so Im afraid you wont see an in-depth analysis by me, after all.
plaaynde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 09:01 PM   #171
guesswest
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,998
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

TY guys for the feedback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn View Post
A 'teleological attractor' would, I guess, be some kind of 'purposefulness magnet'? The end of time = the end of the universe. Complexity in material forms = hydrogen => helium => rest of PT => life => intelligence => ??? => Profit!

In short, it doesn't mean anything, but what it's trying to mean is that there's this big whooshy thing in the future that's reaching back through time and making evolution (and really cool number patterns, whoooooah) happen. From what I can make out.
This makes sense. Or rather it doesn't, but I follow. I still don't get though where the numbers/graph/software come from / are based on.
guesswest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2010, 10:30 AM   #172
Plancer
journeyman
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 365
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA View Post
(regarding a quote within the post)
I've also had trouble getting my stiffness measured because my sample is "to" (sic) small.
Plancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 01:58 AM   #173
Homes
newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 42
What do you make of THESE ufo's?

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?
Homes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 02:07 AM   #174
Homes
newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 42
Re: Official Fringe Topics Thread

By the way, this thread is a terrible idea - it just marginalizes some potentially interesting topics - just because a few people went and started a few silly threads? That is very un-scientific, IMO.
Homes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 05:23 AM   #175
LirvA
self-banned
 
LirvA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Free Manning, Hammond, and Brown.
Posts: 42,857
Re: What do you make of THESE ufo's?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homes View Post
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?

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.
LirvA is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online