Background
In a blog post dated September 27, 2018, titled "Material of Interest Magnesium-Zinc_Bismuth" TTSA stated that "Over the last three months, To The Stars Academy has collected seven pieces of material, from multiple sources, to study for the ADAM research project."
During a presentation at the CUN Rome 27 October 2018 meeting, a slide shown by Luis Elizondo, and titled "What is happening now with TTSA? Collection and analysis of material is ongoing" featured 12 images.
Do we already know of any of these samples?
The closest match I could find was the round disc like item in the image below. This is the complete collection of material sent to Art Bell in 1996.
Number 2.
In a video clip on the TTSA website blog, the image I have labelled number 2 is shown on a screen behind TTSA members, at 1minute 3 seconds. The full screen view shows what appears to be a set of four unwrapped samples, rather than the samples themselves.
Number 4.
Is the Tiffin, Ohio Ed's samples, from 2003.
Number 6.
@Jay09784691 twitter 6 November 2018 suggests that this image shows a test tube containing an "implant." This also featured on a TTSA video clip at one point.
Number 7.
Is one of the fragments which an anonymous individual sent to the late Art Bell in 1996, which was said to have come from Roswell.
Number 10.
The closest match to this image is a fragment from 1972, another "Ed" from Ohio.
Number 11
Is the 1985 (some say 1987) Bob White fragment.
A new catalogue
In trying to answer the question as to whether or not we had previously seen the fragments shown in the TTSA slide, I looked around for a list or catalogue of such material, said to have come from a UAP. Surprisingly, I couldn't find any such list or catalogue. So, I have compiled a catalogue of my own,which in version one runs to 34 events. I welcome corrections, additions etc.Please send these to keithbasterfield@yahoo.com.au I am currently preparing a PDF copy of the catalogue, and then will look to host it on someone's website.
A PRELIMINARY CATALOGUE OF ALLEGED “FRAGMENTS” REPORTEDLY ASSOCIATED
WITH SIGHTINGS OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA WHERE ANALYSIS(ES) WERE
CONDUCTED.
Compiled by Keith Basterfield
Version 1: 17 November 2018
Background
Over the years, there have been a number of individuals who
have come forward submitting “fragments” which they have alleged, are
associated with sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP.) In more
recent times To The Stars Academy (TTSA) has initiated the A.D.A.M. project to
collect and analyse such items.
In attempting to follow and understand the discussions on
various “fragments,” I have been hampered by a lack of a centralised list, or
catalogue of such material.
Introduction
The purpose of this preliminary catalogue is to take a first
pass at bringing together the diverse accounts of physical “fragments” which
are scattered throughout the UAP literature.
The catalogue entries do not include:
- “fragments” which have
reportedly come from within the human body, i.e. so called “alien implants”
- “fragments” found in crop
circles; stains on clothing of abductees; soil samples; liquid samples or
samples of vegetation; or pancakes.
Instead, the catalogue focuses on samples of materials said
to have been ejected by/dropped from UAP, or have been found after a UAP
sighting.
Catalogue format
Each entry has seven sections:
- Location of the UAP
sighting – Location.
- The date of the sighting –
Date.
- The reported link between
the object found and the UAP sighting – Link.
- A description of the item
found – Specimen description.
- Details of any analysis
(es) conducted – Analysis.
- Whether or not there are
any images/photographs of the sample – Image.
- Reference(s) for the
information above – Reference(s).
Disclaimer
This is a work in progress, with
version 1 simply being a starting point. Information references provided here
may not yet tell the full story of any individual sample. I welcome
corrections; additional sources etc. Please forward these to keithbasterfield@yahoo.com.au
THE CATALOGUE
1. Location: Aurora, Texas, USA.
2. Date: 17 April 1897.
3. Link: A UAP is said to have
sailed over the public square and collided with a windmill, exploding into
pieces. A re-investigation was conducted in 1973, by Journalist W Case and
McDonnell Douglas aircraft company personnel. Fragments found by Case et al.
4. Sample description:
“Fragments.”
5. Analysis:
By: McDonnell Douglas aircraft
company personnel.
Conclusion: 83% aluminium; 16%
Ca; zinc with possible traces of manganese and copper. Could have originated
with post 1908 common aluminium alloys.
6. Image: No.
7. Reference:
Holliday, J E. McDonnell, report
on the Aurora case. Unpublished. 13 August 1973. On site investigators were
Ronald, A and Gurney, N J (12 May 1973.) Cited in Vallee, J F. “Physical
analyses in ten cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with material samples.”
Journal of Scientific Explanation, Volume 12, number 3, pp359-375.
1. Location: Ubatuba, near Sao Paulo, Brazil.
2. Date: 1933 or 1934.
3. Link: Story emerged in 1957.
Witnesses reported seeing a disc which exploded, showering bright, metallic
fragments. A few fragments were recovered.
4. Sample description 1:
Bright, metallic fragments.
5. Analysis 1:
a. By Dr Luis Barbosa (Brazil)
Conclusion: Major component –
highly pure magnesium.
b. By Dr Peter Sturrock (USA)
c. By French laboratories
including Prof Lorin, Oray University.
Conclusions for b and c:
Magnesium and magnesium oxide with very small amounts of aluminium, calcium and
iron.
The above information is from
Vallee, J F. “Physical analyses in ten cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with
material samples.” Journal of Scientific Explanation, Volume 12, number 3,
pp359-375.
The following information is from
Clark, J. “The UFO Encyclopaedia” Volume 2. Apogee Books. Detroit. pp 353.
Sample description 2:
Sighted by Dr Olavo T Fontes 1957
·
Three pieces
·
Metallic looking
·
Dull grey colour
·
Irregular surfaces
·
Surface of all samples covered with scattered
areas of white material.
Analysis 2:
Via Fontes. As set out in
Physical evidence” APROB March 1960, 1, 3.
a.
By: Mineral Production
laboratory. Chemist Luisa Maria A Barbosa.
Methods: Chemical, spectrographic
and x-ray tests.
Conclusions:
·
Magnesium of high degree of purity
·
Chemist Barbosa spectrographic analysis –“not
even the so-called trace elements usually detected were apparent.”
·
Chemist Elson Teixeira – second spectrographic
analysis.
b. Brazilian
army did tests.
c. Laboratory
of crystallography did additional x-ray diffraction tests. One sample density
1.8666; whereas pure magnesium is 1.741.
d. The
testing procedure destroyed one of the three samples.
Analysis 3: As reported in the
APRO Bulletin, Jul/Aug 1970 pp 1, 5.
By: APRO via Walter Walker
Metallurgical Engineer, University of Arizona.
Methods: Microstructural studies;
x-ray diffraction analysis; microstructural studies; dislocation etch-pit
studies.
Conclusions:
- Directionally solidified castings
- “Nowhere in our present
technology is there a use for oriented, cast, coarse-grained material
such as observed in this study.”
Analysis 4: 1968. As described in
Craig, R. 1995. “UFOs: An insider’s view of the official quest for
evidence.” University of North Texas.
Denton, Texas.
By: Roy Craig, physical chemist
with Condon Committee. Got piece from APRO.
Tested at National Office
Laboratory, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division.
Other tests at Dow Chemical’s
Metallurgical Laboratory came to the same conclusion.
Methods: Unstated.
Conclusions:
“Claimed UFO fragment is not
nearly as pure as magnesium produced by known earthly technology prior to
1957…”
6. Images: In Craig 1995.
7. References:
1. “APRO metal extra-terrestrial?”
NICAP Special Bulletin, May 1960:3.
2. “APRO’s new finding on Ubatuba
magnesium.” APROB Jul/Aug 1970: 1, 5.
3. Craig, R. 1995. “UFOs: An
insider’s view of the official quest for evidence.” University of North Texas.
Denton, Texas. p 136 and chapter 8.
4. “Physical evidence” APROB
March 1960, 1, 3.
5. Vallee, J F. “Physical
analyses in ten cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with material samples.”
Journal of Scientific Explanation, Volume 12, number 3, pp359-375.
1. Location: San Antonio, New Mexico, USA.
2. Date: 16 August 1945.
3. Link: Jose Padilla (aged 9)
and Remigo Baca (7) found a gouge in the earth and a circular object at the end
of it. They picked up an artifact. Was in Remigo’s possession for a long time,
then Padilla’s for one year (in a house in San Antonio.) Two samples given to
Frontier Analysis Ltd. By MUFON, in October 2015.
4. Samples description:
a. A piece of thin, shiny
material, which could unfold itself when folded. Sample not available.
b. Two pieces of metal from the
inside wall of the crashed object.
5. Analysis of b:
By: Frontier Analysis Ltd. 2015.
Methods: Microscopic examination;
infrared analysis; Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP)/Mass spectrometer (MS); isotopic
ratio analysis.
Conclusions:
·
The two samples have identical compositions –
aluminium primarily alloyed with copper and silicon
·
They compare with cast aluminium in the 3XXX X
series – these alloys have wide use in engine crank cases; gas and oil tanks
etc.
·
Isotopic ratios for nickel, copper and zinc
compare to terrestrial values.
6. Image: Yes.
7. Reference:
Technical service response number
UT090. Frontier Analysis Ltd. P A Budinger, dated 31 October 2015.
1. Location: Roswell, New Mexico, USA
2. Date: 1947.
3. Link: Science journalist
Andrew Von Retyi was told that NASA was in possession of physical evidence.
4. Sample description:
“Odd metallic-and-plastic-like
material”
5. Analysis:
By: (1974). ‘Dr Cris.’ Polish
biophysicist and engineer at NASA contractor.
Method: Electron microscope.
Conclusions:
·
Outer part of metallic material was very smooth
and shiny
·
Microscope – small pyramidal structures in
nanometre range
·
“The metallurgical experts found alloys that
could only have been made in weightless conditions”
·
Appeared to have been made in early 1950’s
·
“Foamed metals didn’t exist then.”
·
Melting point greater than 2000 degrees C
·
“Foil seemed to possess a ‘memory.’”
6. Image: No.
7. Reference:
Good, T. 2007 “Need to
know.” Pegasus Books. NY. P61.
1. Location: Roswell, New Mexico, USA.
2.
Date: 1947.
3. Link: On 24 March 1996 sample
taken to the International UFO Museum and Research Centre. Source reported to
be from a GI at the Roswell crash.
4. Sample description:
·
Few inches long
·
Twisted
·
Roughly triangular with a large hole in the Centre
·
Thin material
·
Raised lines on it.
5. Analysis:
By: New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico. Chris McKee.
Methods: Not stated.
Conclusions:
·
Copper and silver
·
Traces of sodium, aluminium, silicon, iron,
chromium, sulphur and chlorine
·
McKee pointed out that the sample had not been
cleaned prior to testing so elements could be from soil.
Note:
A Utah based artist Randy
Fullbright claimed that the fragment was a piece of jewellery scrap from his
studio. Miller Johnson of the RUFOMARC compared samples from the studio with
the fragment and concluded Fullbright was correct.
6. Image: No.
7. Reference: Baker, A. 1997.
“UFO Sightings.” TV Books. New York. Pp73-75.
1. Location: Between San Mateo Mountains and Sierra Blanca, West of
Roswell, New Mexico, USA.
2. Date: 1947.
3. Link: In April 1996, Art Bell
and Linda Moulton Howe, received a series of five typed letters from an
anonymous source, plus two shipments of metal pieces through the post,
reportedly about a crash at Roswell. The
letters were postmarked South Carolina. The source stated that the account came
from his grandfather’s diary; and the pieces from a box belonging to his
grandfather.
4. Specimen description:
a. From the second letter –
several pieces square cut. Grey metal.
b. From the third letter – six
pieces of metal different from the first batch. Said to have come from the
external outside of the crashed disc. Layered metal.
5. Analyses:
(A) a. several pieces square cut.
Grey metal.
By: Scientist at major Midwestern
University
Methods: scanning electron
microscope. Energy dispersive spectroscopy.
Conclusions: Greater than 99%
aluminium of normal density
b. Two pieces of metal different
from the first batch
By: Scientist at major Midwestern
University
Method: Energy dispersive
spectroscopy (EDS.)
Conclusions: shiny side contained
greater than 95% magnesium; 2-3% zinc, layers – Mg and small Zn separated by
thin layers of high bismuth content. Thin, wavy layers of bismuth 1-4 microns
think; the Mg/Zn layer was 100-200 microns thick. 26+ alternating layers.
(B) By: Eric Hauri PhD, Ion
microprobe technician, Carnegie Institution of Washington, DC. 20 July 1996.
Methods: Unknown.
Conclusions:
·
“The Bi-Mg sample gave count rates of positive
magnesium ions, which were enhanced sixty times more than in the pure magnesium
metal standard.”
·
11% more Mg26 in the sample but not outside
terrestrial range.
(C) Sample of the
bismuth-magnesium-zinc material.
By: Hal Puthoff, EarthTech
International on 7 January 1999.
Methods: Not stated in reference.
Conclusions: Linda Moulton Howe
posed a series of questions to Puthoff. Howe states that a couple of months
later the sample was returned but no definitive answers to her specific
questions were given.
An aside. Howe states that she
contacted – Director of National Sciences at MIT; National Science Foundation;
metallurgists at Sandia National Laboratories; aerospace and exotic metal
manufacturers; and “No-on had any knowledge of such a layered material.”
(D) By: Hal Puthoff, EarthTech
International in 2012.
Methods: Unknown.
Conclusions: No
interesting/anomalous outcomes in tests involving fields. Bi channels of the
size seen in the sample layered between Mg layers of the size seen in the
sample closely match a waveguide structure that permits sub-wavelength THz
(terahertz) signals to propagate freely.
6. Image: Yes.
References:
Howe, Linda Moulton Earthfiles
website. https://www.earthfiles.com/
1. Location: Roswell, New Mexico, USA.
2. Date: 1947.
3. Link: On 4 July 1997 at
Roswell, New Mexico, Dr Russell VernonClark announced test results, on a sample
given to Dr. Roger Leir in August 1995, by an individual who stated they were
pieces of a disc from the 1947 Roswell crash.
4. Sample description:
·
1-1.5 inches across and 5/8 inches thick
·
Frontal curvature – curves on two levels
·
Temperature discolouration.
5. Analysis:
By: Dr Russell VernonClark,
chemist
Methods: Inductively coupled
plasma/mass spectrometry; secondary ion mass spectroscopy.
Conclusions: significant
variations from normal isotopic composition found on Earth; extra-terrestrial
in origin; manufactured. Specifically:
Nickel isotopes – Ni60 26.1%;
Ni61 1.13%; natural abundance on Earth. Ratio is about 23:1. In the sample the
ratio is 5:1.
Zinc isotopes – Zn64 48.6%; Zn66
27.9% natural abundance on Earth. Ratio is 7:4. In the sample ratio is 4:9.
Silver isotopes – Silver107 and
Silver109. Ration on Earth is 1:1. In the sample 1:2.
Germanium isotopes – Germanium72
isotope – 94% of in sample. Natural terrestrial is only 27%.
Composition of material is
greater than 99% silicon.
6. Images: Yes.
7. Reference:
“Artifact analysis by Dr Russell
Vernonclark.” CNI news O S Culbern. http://www.ufocrashbook.com/pdfs/Artifact%20Analysis%20by%20Dr.%20Russell%20Vernon%20Clark.pdf
Notes:
1. The
testing was arranged by television producer Christopher Wyatt.
2. 25July
1997. https://lasvegassun.com/news/1997/jul/25/vernonclark-stands-by-unearthly-fragment-conclusio
“VernonClark stands by
unearthly fragment conclusion. But VernonClark of the US San Diego acknowledged
Friday that he cannot be 100 percent certain… He had been quoted then as
saying of the fragment: “It is impossible for it to be from Earth.” But on
Friday VernonClark insisted that he had been misquoted. “I cannot imagine my
having said that,” he said…”In retrospect, with 20-20 hindsight, I would have
preferred to have more work done (on the sample before releasing conclusions)
but I stand by my conclusions…”
3. 1997. CNI News website, Michael Lindemann, 1997, as
cited by http://ufologie.patrickgross.org/rw/a/debrisvc01.htm
States that Vernonclark was
employed as an Environmental Health and Safety specialist in the chemistry
department UCSD, with a PhD in chemistry gained in 1993. His Cv is said to show
publication of eight scientific papers since 1993. He states that there was a
second independent set of tests undertaken by an unnamed organisation which
showed roughly the same unusual isotopic ratios.
CNI News had contacted a number of
scientists including at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and the California
Institute of Technology : “…all of them agreed on two things..the findings, if
true, would be astounding..and the findings were very unlikely to be true.”
“Other scientists when contacted
by reporters, said that the isotopic values described by VernonClark, while not
natural, could easily be produced in a university laboratory.”
Journalist John Fleck in an
Albuquerque Journal article quoted a University of Kentucky chemist Bob Toreki
who said “You can do it here.”
Kevin Randle interviewed
VernonClark by telephone “…he said it could be done so that the isotopic
ratios, while not naturally occurring, could be produced in a lab. He added
that it was an expensive proposition.”
“Other scientists suggested there
were huge mistakes in the original testing. They pointed out that one of the
elements Germanium-75, a radioactive isotope has a very short half-life and
would decay into other elements in less than a day.”
“In the ten years that follow,
there has been nothing more about this. No reports from other labs.”
1. Maury island, Washington State, USA.
2. Date: 21 June 1947.
3. Link: Witness reported six
large flat doughnut shaped objects. One descended, there was a dull explosion
heard and sheets of light, thin material came from the object. At the same time
witnesses were showered with hot, dark fragments.
4. Sample description:
Hot, dark fragments.
5. Analyses:
a. Military and FBI “analysis of
the fragments shows them to be from a Tacoma slag mill.”
b. Ray Palmer and Kenneth Arnold
published an analysis – Calcium, iron, zinc and titanium. Also aluminium,
manganese, copper, magnesium and silicon, nickel, lead, strontium and chromium.
Traces of silver, tin and cadmium were reported.
6. Image: No.
7. Reference:
Vallee, J F. “Physical analyses
in ten cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with material samples.” Journal of
Scientific Explanation, Volume 12, number 3, pp359-375.
1. Location: Plains of San Augustin, New Mexico, USA. (alternative spelling is Agustin)
2. Date: July 1947.
3. Link: Chuck Wade visited the
site and found the fragment. Submitted 2014 to Paul Garver, ASD Mufon NM.
Garver sent it to MUFON HQ then to Frontier Analysis Ltd., who received it on
27 March 2014.
4. Sample description:
·
Garver divided it into two parts “A” and “B”
·
Frontier Analysis designated “I-beam A.”
·
Weight 0.8337 grams
·
3.7mm thick
·
“I-beam” shape.
5. Analysis of “I-beam A.”
By: Frontier Analysis Ltd.
Methods: ICP-MS and ICP-AES
elemental analysis; infrared analysis; microscopic analysis.
Conclusions:
- Consists mostly of
aluminum coated with very small amounts of aluminum oxide corrosion
- Greater than 97%
aluminium was alloyed with small
amounts of magnesium, silicon and possibly iron
- This alloy is in the 6000
series of International Alloy Designations system – many commercial uses
- Internet search reveals
many companies who manufacture I-beams of three aluminium grades of
various sizes
- Isotopic analysis on
nickel, copper and gallium consistent with terrestrial values.
6. Images: Yes.
7. References:
1. MUFON CMS case file is 52614.
2. Technical service response
number UT086. Frontier Analysis Ltd. P A Budinger. Dated 22 August 2014.
1. Location: Plains of San Augustin, New Mexico, USA (alternative
spelling is Agustin)
2. Date: Circa 1947.
3. Link: Chuck Wade visited the
site and located a number of metal fragments and one sample of plastic-like
material. Sample received by Frontier Analysis Ltd. 6 June 2005 via Brian
Boldman.
4. Sample description:
Eleven pieces in all. Six were
pliable foil-like metal; one was semi-pliable foil-like metal; one not pliable
metal; one semi-pliable foil-like metal’ one plastic-like material; and one not
pliable foil-like metal.
5. Analysis:
By: Frontier Analysis Ltd.
Methods: Infrared analysis.
Geiger counter.
Conclusions:
·
No radiation beyond normal background
·
Plastic identified as polyethylene
·
Six samples are speculated to be aluminium foil
·
Four other samples are thicker – not related to
aluminium foil. “Their source remains unknown.”
·
Isotopic ratio tests cannot be done due to
aluminium having only one isotope
·
Note: “The metal samples have been examined by
other laboratories using energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy, elemental
analysis.”
6. Image: Yes.
7. Reference:
Technical service response number
UT049. Frontier Analysis Ltd. P A Budinger dated 17 May 2006.
1. Location: 100 feet South-east of main Roswell 1947 “crash debris
field”, New Mexico, USA.
2.
Date: July 1947.
3. Link: Frank Kimbler visited
the site and located a fragment in 2014. Sample received by Frontier Analysis
Ltd. on 23 May 2014.
4. Sample description:
·
Fragment measured about 11 X 5 X 9 x7mm and
1.42mm thick
·
Weighed 0.1504 grams
·
Has a “black” side and a “red side.”
5. Analysis:
By: Frontier Analysis Ltd.
Methods: Microscopic examination;
infrared spectroscopy.
6. Conclusions:
·
Previous SEM-EDS analysis detected Al, Si, Mg,
Ca, Fe and Ti. Ti only on “red side’
·
Very brittle
·
Composed of an epoxy resin ester based on
bisphenol-A with quartz filler. It has red paint on it.
·
Materials like these are used as insulating
components for electrical and electronic industries
·
Elemental analysis results typical of elements
in dirt/soil.
6. Image: Yes.
7. Reference:
Technical service response number
UT084. Frontier Analysis Ltd. P A Budinger dated 7 July 2014.
1. Location: Abbiate Guazzone, Italy.
2. Date: 24 April 1950.
3. Link: Bruno Focchim reported
seeing a UAP and entities. Next day he found a few pieces of metal at the site.
4. Sample description:
Three pieces of shiny metal.
5. Analysis:
By: Unknown.
Methods: Not stated.
Conclusions:
·
Shiny metal
·
Granulous surface
·
Yellow-white colour
·
Weight 1.64 grams
·
74.33% Copper; 19.38% tin; 4.92% lead. Traces of
antimony; zinc; nickel; iron; silver; aluminium
·
“It is very probable that the fragments presented
to us for examination come from a packing bed of a bearing that has had very
heavy wear.”
6. Image: Yes.
7. Reference:
Good, T. 1999. “Alien Base.”
Harper Perenial. NY. Citing
“Examination of some metallic fragments attributed to a flying saucer.” Report
no ISML N530954/4157. Instituo Sperimentale dei Metalli Leggeri, Novara, 30
September 1953.
1. Location: Washington, DC, USA.
2. Date: 1952.
3. Link: Journalist Frank
Edwards, reported an object fell to the ground when a Navy pilot chased a
flying disc. Object was recovered an hour later.
4. Sample description:
·
Metallic fragment
·
One inch in size
·
Remarkably hard.
5. Analysis:
By: Mr Wilbert Smith
Conclusions: Matrix of magnesium
orthosilicate composed of particles of 15 microns
No other analysis known.
6. Image: No.
7. Reference:
Edwards, F. 1966. “Flying Saucers
Serious Business.” New York. Bantam. Cited in Vallee, J F. “Physical analyses
in ten cases of unidentified aerial objects with material samples.” Journal of
Scientific Exploration, Volume 12, number 3, pp357-375.
1. Location: USA.
2. Date: 1952.
3. Link: CIA had custody of a
strange piece of metal which fell from the sky during the 1952 UFO flap.
4. Sample description:
·
Piece of metal
·
Smooth on one side, bubbly on the other.
5. Analysis:
National Bureau of Standards – an
“uncommon alloy.”
6. Image: No.
7. Reference:
Vallee, J. 2017. “Forbidden
Science – Volume three.” Anomalist Books, San Antonio, Texas. p432, citing
interview between Vallee and Arthur Lundahl.
1. Location: Campinas, Brazil.
2. Date: 14 (13th?) December
1954.
3. Link: Journalist Frank Edwards
– numerous witnesses saw three discs. One wobbled and descended. Emitted thin
stream of silvery liquid.
4. Sample description: None
given.
5. Analysis:
By: Dr Risvaldo Maffei - Unnamed
Brazilian laboratory.
Conclusions: Tin was the main
component. 10% of material composed of other substances.
The above information from
Vallee, J F. “Physical analyses in ten cases of unidentified aerial objects
with material samples.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 12, number 3,
pp357-375.
The information below from Maney,
C A. “The Campinas sighting.” FSR Volume 8, number 3 pp 3-6. (May/Jun 1962.)
Cites date as 13 December 1954.
3. Link: A woman saw three
objects in the sky. One object, round-shaped, dull-grey in colour, like two
plates inverted and stuck together. A liquid dropped from it. She went to spot
and found a brilliant stain 10cm in diameter on concrete. Her friend Prof.
Benedito G Nascimento collected the sample and took it to a chemist.
5. Analyses:
a. By: Young Laboratories – Chief
chemist Dr Visvaldo Maffei.
Conclusions:
·
88.91% tin
·
11.09% oxygen
·
No other trace elements
·
Weight was 1.30 grams.
b. By: Brazilian Air Force.
Conclusions: Results of their
tests not released. However, “I was informed that exhaustive tests performed by
the Air Force chemists only confirmed the results obtained by Dr Maffei.”
6. Image: Yes, in FSR
7. References:
1. Maney, C A. “The Campinas
sighting.” FSR Volume 8, number 3 pp 3-6. (May/Jun 1962.)
2. Vallee, J F. “Physical
analyses in ten cases of unidentified aerial objects with material samples.”
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 12, number 3, pp357-375.
1. Location: Vaddo Island, 90 kms NNW of Stockholm, Sweden.
2. Date: 17 November 1956.
3. Link: Stig Ekberg and Harry
Sjoberg sighted an 8m by 3m flattened sphere which approached to within 100m of
them and 1m off ground. They found a shiny rock at the landing site.
4. Sample description:
·
Shiny rock
·
Originally hot to touch
·
Three sided piece of metal – size of a matchbox
·
Heavy.
5. Analysis:
By: SAAB airline manufacturing
company. Mr Sven Schalh. Also laboratories in Sweden, Denmark and Germany.
Conclusions: Composed of tungsten
carbide and cobalt consistent with manufactured products.
6. Image: No.
7. Reference:
Von Luidwiger, I. “Investigating
Mysteries.” Unpublished book manuscript. Personal communication, courtesy of
NIDS. Cited in Vallee, J F. “Physical analyses in ten cases of unidentified
aerial objects with material samples.” Journal of Scientific Exploration,
Volume 12, number 3, pp357-375.
1. Location: Maumee, Ohio, USA.
2. Date: 13 July 1967.
3. Link: Collision between a car
and an unidentified light. The driver later reported finding two metal samples
in the middle of the road and “fibrous” material on the car. (Vallee.)
Robert Richardson reported
collision between his car and a brilliant blue-white light (8ft tall and 22
foot wide) which blocked the road forcing them to break, before hitting it.
(APROB.)
4. Sample description: Two metal
samples plus “fibrous metal.” (Vallee.) Two metal pieces found on road and “odd
strip of material” on the car’s bumper bar. (APROB.)
5. Analysis:
By: Not stated.
Fibrous sample was 92% magnesium.
(Vallee.)
6. Image: No.
7. References:
1. APROB Jul/Aug 1967, pp1, 3.
2. Vallee, J F. “Physical
analyses in ten cases of unidentified aerial objects with material samples.”
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 12, number 3, pp357-375.
1. Location: Kiana, Alaska, USA.
2. Date: Early 1970’s.
3. Link: An Eskimo is reported to
have found two pieces of material on a river bank following an aerial
phenomenon. Professor Peter Sturrock acquired one piece.
4. Sample description:
·
Silvery
·
Light weight
·
Looks as if poured from a source close to the
ground.
5. Analysis: Details unstated.
6. Image: No.
7. Reference:
Vallee, J F. “Physical analyses
in ten cases of unidentified aerial objects with material samples.” Journal of
Scientific Exploration, Volume 12, number 3, pp357-375. Citing personal
communication to the author. Quoted with permission.
1. Location: Barborton, Ohio, USA.
2. Date: July 1972.
3. Link: Edward Lunguy saw a
hovering orange ball of light in the sky. Stationary at first, it moved
north-east then all of a sudden blew up silently. Three weeks later while mowing
his mother’s lawn he found an object. Two years later his wife suggested it be
tested.
4. Sample description:
·
Black, shiny, roughly oblong
·
13 pound in weight
·
13 x 9 x 4 inches in size.
5. Analyses:
(A) By: Robert Oldrieve (worked
at NASA) – September 1974.
Methods: Spectroscopic
diffraction tests.
Conclusions:
·
Hardness 7/10
·
Insoluble in acids
·
Had characteristics of type of lass being
researched by NASA for use as rocker liners or heat shields
·
Melted at very high temperatures.
(B) By: David Burns – August
1974, Assistant professor of Geology, Kent State University.
Thoughts: Volcanic rock?
6. Image: Yes.
7. References:
1. ERA, Bradford, Pennsylvania,
25 December 1978.
2. Schwarthberg, R. “The day
black glass fell from the sky.” “Beyond Reality” Magazine, December 1979.
pp34-35 & 58.
1. Location: Bogota, Columbia.
2. Date: 1975 or 1976.
3. Link: Two students heard a
metallic sound overhead. Twelve foot disc in air. Four other objects appeared.
Spouts of liquid from original disc. Objects left. After letting material cool
for 10 minutes witnesses recovered two metal chunks.
4. Sample description:
·
Two metal chunks
·
4 inch by 1.25 inch thick
·
One side showed evidence of violent bubbling.
Other side was flat.
5. Analyses:
(A) By: Mechanical engineering
petroleum company, Central America.
Conclusions: Aluminum alloy with
magnesium and tin. Non-magnetic. Contained traces of unidentified material.
Easy to cut – presented very fine granulation.
(B) By: Valle, J and Puthoff, H.
Method: Scanning electron
microscopy.
Conclusions: 93.7% aluminium;
4.8% phosphorous; 0.9% iron; with traces of sulphur and an unexplained
oxy-carbide layer. No fluoride and no water contrary to most aluminium samples.
Also used scanning ion mass
spectroscopy (SIMS). Found surface layer of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, beyond
this aluminium and magnesium with potassium, sulphur, sodium and silicon. Trace
amounts of phosphorous and iron.
6. Image: No.
7. Reference:
Vallee, J F. “Physical analyses
in ten cases of unidentified aerial objects with material samples.” Journal of
Scientific Exploration, Volume 12, number 3, pp357-375.
Note:
In Vallee, J. 2014.
“Confrontations.” Anomalist Books. Pp42-45,
Vallee states he was given the sample on 18 October 1985 and that the specimen
was “subjected to extensive test at the University of Texas. The major
component was aluminium, which had clearly been exposed to extremes of
temperature.”
1. Location: Council Bluffs, Iowa, USA.
2. Date: 17 December 1977.
3. Link: Two residents reported
seeing an object which crashed to the ground in the vicinity of a park. A
bright flash was seen plus flames 7-10 feet high. Witnesses then found a large
area covered with a mass of molten metal that glowed re/orange. Police and
firefighters arrived within minutes. Two independent witnesses saw hovering red
light.
4. Sample description: originally
molten mass running over ground in a 6 feet x 4 feet area. Secondary patch was
2 feet by 4 feet.
5. Analysis:
By: Iowa State University and
Griffin Pipes Product Company.
Methods: X ray fluorescence;
electron beam microprobe; emission microscopy techniques.
Conclusions:
Conclusions:
“The material is chiefly iron
with very small amounts (less than 1%) of alloying materials such as nickel and
chromium. The slag is a foam material containing metallic iron and aluminium
with smaller amounts of magnesium, silicon and titanium.” The white ash was
found to be calcium with some magnesium.
6. Image: No.
7. Reference:
Vallee, J F. “Physical analyses
in ten cases of unidentified aerial objects with material samples.” Journal of
Scientific Exploration, Volume 12, number 3, pp357-375.
Note:
Vallee in 1997 stated “Origin
remains unknown.” Not a meteorite. No local firms in operation which could have
produced it. Not a hoax. Not a piece of equipment from an aircraft.
1. Location: Jopala, near Puebla, Mexico.
2. Date: 1978.
3. Link: Vallee was in Mexico in November
1978 and local authorities told him of a fall and recovery of a metallic
residue following the observation of an unknown aerial phenomena in the mountains
near Puebla.
4. Sample description: Metallic
residue.
5. Analysis:
“Reportedly composed of iron with
silicon (1.13%) and traces of magnesium (0.8%); chromium (0.77%) and carbon
(0.28%.)
6. Image: Yes.
7. Reference:
Vallee, J F. “Physical analyses
in ten cases of unidentified aerial objects with material samples.” Journal of
Scientific Exploration, Volume 12, number 3, pp357-375.
Notes:
Has the
date of the “crash” as 29 July 1977.
1. Location: Rendlesham Forest, England.
2. Date: 1980.
3. Link: No knowledge of this
particular sample or how collected. Sent by Bennie Foggin.
4. Sample description: Collection
of relatively fine shavings on the order of 1mm.
5. Analysis:
By: Not stated.
Methods: scanning electron
microscope; energy dispersive spectroscopy.
Conclusions:
·
Si 19.47% suggesting this alloy might have been
used for casting
·
Fe content typical level for trace impurity
·
Mg and Cu levels likely due to addition but
could be impurities
·
“Overall we can say that this metal alloy does
not represent a common aluminium alloy. The high silicon content suggests this
material was used to generate a casting, as high silicon is often used to
accomplish this (series 4000.)
6. Image: No.
7. References:
1. Location: Rendlesham Forest, England.
2. Date: 1980.
3. Link: In a YouTube video at Reserve
Captain Lori Rehfeldt provides her recollections of a promotions ceremony where
she spoke to a General Edmonson. She asked him about Rendlesham UFO case. Then
another man present, an electrical engineer USAF, said he couldn’t help but overhear.
He mentioned a plastic material being found which has now been refined. It was
a “wad” or “stick.”
4. Sample description: “Plastic
“wad” or “stick.”
5. Analysis:
By: Not stated.
Conclusion: Man said it was “not
indigenous to the Earth.”
6. Image: No.
7. Reference:
1. Location: Rendlesham Forest, England.
2.
Date: 1980.
3. Link: Material given to Ronnie
Dugdale. Now held by John Hanson. Sample said to have been sent to USA for
analysis.
4. Sample description:
Chunk of silver metal.
5. Analysis: Not reported.
6. Image: Yes.
7. Reference:
1. Location: Colorado/Nevada border, USA.
2. Date: 1985. (Some references
say 1987.)
3. Link: Bob White and friend
were driving to Las Vegas. Large bright UAP seen. Flew into sky joined larger
UAP. Glowing rang ember fell to the ground. Went to that place found a tear
drop shaped metal, very hot at first.
4. Sample description:
·
Tear shaped blob of light metal
·
8 inches long 2 inches across at the broad end
·
Weighed less than 2 pounds.
5. Analyses:
(A) By: New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology. 1996. For NIDS.
Methods: x-ray fluorescence;
electron microscope.
Conclusions:
·
Finger shaped piece of metal, about 30mm long;
7mm thick; 18mm wide at larger end and
10mm wide at smallest end
·
Interior was silver-white, highly reflective
·
Mass 5.11524 grams
·
X-ray – 85%Al by weight; 9% Silicon; 2% Iron;
0.9%Ca; 0.7%Cl; 0.6%Na.
·
Similar composition to 360 aluminum casting
alloy
·
Electron microscope – uniform microstructure
·
Density 2.47g/cm3
·
Hardness typical for aluminium alloys
·
There were no anomalies in the results.
(B) By: Dr Robert Gibbons – 2003
– former NASA scientist.
Conclusions: Isotopic ratios –
May 1999 – La Jolla, California showed ratio of isotopes of strontium was
0.712.
(C) Comments by Chris Ellis,
solid state physicist, on a video “We found that the object is an aluminium
alloy of unknown origin.”
6. Image:
Yes.
7. References:
1. “Bob
White case UFO object UFO Hunters.” UFO Hunters series 3 episode 7 (“UFO
relics.”) Aired 6 May 2009 (NY History Channel.)
2. Linse,
P and Harrison E. “Bob White’s great artifact mystery solved.” Skeptics Oct 12
2011
Note:
Article by Linse, P and Harrison
E. “Bob White’s great artifact mystery solved.” Skeptics Oct 12 2011
www,skeptic.com/e-skeptic/11-10-12/
This article concluded that the
object was “made of accreted grinding residue. It forms in a manner similar to
a common stalagmite when metal castings are cleaned in large stationary
grindings.”
1. Location: Shikmona Beach, South of Haifa, Israel
2. 28 September 1987.
3. Link: A 27 year old mechanic
saw a disc shape hovering over the beach. It emitted a red flash then
disappeared. Two days later at the site he noted that “the sand contained a
display in the image of the ufo.”
4. Sample description:
·
“a display in the image of the ufo.”
·
“the display material appears to melt at a very
low temperature, ca.50 degree C.”
5. Analysis:
By: Frontier Analysis Ltd.
Methods: Infrared spectroscopy;
(an ESD elemental analysis was performed by another laboratory.)
Conclusions:
·
EDS – rust greater than 50% by weight; paraffin
wax was 20-35% by weight; lubricant base oil 14-15% by weight
·
“The only known source of this material is from
a refinery”
·
The rust indicates some kind of rusted container
or pipeline
·
“This material is a toxic waste dump that
coincidentally was present on the beach.”
6. Image: Yes.
7. Reference:
Technical service response number
UT009. Frontier Analysis Ltd. P A Budinger, dated 25 September 2000.
1. Location: 40 miles east of Columbus, Ohio USA (south-east of
Newark)
2. Date: Summer 1995 (Ref 1) 1996
(Ref 2.)
3. Link: Bennie Foggin heard a
noise like “metal grinding on metal.” Couldn’t see anything. Looked again and
then saw a very square looking, silent UAP in the sky. 300ft long with a 100ft
wing. Travelled west to east. As he watched it he heard something hit the
ground near him. He had a look around the area and found a specimen – off the
road in moist, dirt area. The sample was misplaced till around 2006.
4.
Sample description:
·
Spear head shape about one inch long by half
inch wide at non spear head end
·
Density about 2.8g/cc3 (within normally range
for aluminium alloys.)
5. Analyses:
(A) By: Unnamed party.
Bennie Foggin in early 2006 gave
it to Joe Stets in Columbus. Unnamed party at his work conducted an informal
analysis
Methods: Unknown.
Conclusions: 89.1% aluminium; 9.9% silicon; 0.8% iron; 0.2% Mg.
Conclusions: 89.1% aluminium; 9.9% silicon; 0.8% iron; 0.2% Mg.
(B) By: US Diagnostics – June
2007.
Methods: X -ray
Conclusions: Primarily homogenous internal structure with some small (less than 1mm) spots or specks likely to be bubbles.
Conclusions: Primarily homogenous internal structure with some small (less than 1mm) spots or specks likely to be bubbles.
(C) By: Unnamed – June 2008
Methods: SEM and EDS work
·
“bottom of the blob “ 15mm diameter faint berry
red stain
·
Pink stain contains oxidised pieces of Al, Si,
Ca, Na, P, Mg and S
·
Metal blob that appears to have solidified in an
unconfirmed manner from a molten state
·
Not exotic or unearthly.
(D) By: Frontier Analysis Ltd.
Methods: Infrared spectroscopy;
energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy; Geiger counter.
Conclusions:
·
No radioactivity beyond normal background
·
Sample is an aluminium alloy
·
High purity alloy with only silicon detected
·
Category wrought 400 type alloy commonly used in
welding wire and as cladding for brazing sheets
·
Could have resulted from a broken weld.
6. Image: Yes.
7. References:
1. Technical service response
number UT050. Frontier Analysis Ltd. P A Budinger dated 14 April 2007.
2. Reiter, N A and Mason P. ”Two
cases of unusual sky-fall aluminium metal from Ohio.”
1. Location: Nevada, USA.
2. Date: 1996.
3. Link: NIDS investigation.
Ejected material.
4. Sample description: No sample
available.
5. Analysis:
Al; with Si; C; Mg and Ca.
6. Image: No.
7. Reference:
Vallee, J. “What do we know about
the material composition of UFOs?” Talk at “Contact In the Desert.”2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnPHt7zfd0I
1. Location: Needles, California, USA.
2. Date: 2008.
3. Link: Emmett Hayes, UFO
researcher and podcaster used a metal detector to find samples.
4. Sample description:
·
Thin metal
·
Appeared aluminium in nature.
5. Analysis:
Not yet undertaken.
6. Image: Yes.
7. Reference:
Punk rock and UFOs blog, 8
November 2018 at
Notes:
George Knapp reported that he had
interviewed witnesses who told him that an object seemed to come down from the
sky and “crash,” and that within 20 minutes five helicopters turned up and a
Skycrane took an object away.
provides further reports from
Knapp. Possibility of a UAV.
1. Location: Newtown, Pennsylvania, USA.
2. Date: 21 January 2014.
3. Link: MUFON case number 55131.
A witness reported a “vortex in the sky” from which shiny, particles fell onto
the ground. Submitted by Donna Luther MUFON SSD/FI Pennsylvania.
4. Sample description:
Shiny particles
5. Analysis:
By: Frontier Analysis Ltd.
Methods: Infrared analysis;
microscopic analysis.
Conclusions:
·
Identified as common glitter
·
Hexagon pieces about one mm wide
·
Common polyester
6. Image: Yes.
7. Reference:
Technical service response number
UT083. Frontier Analysis Ltd. P A Budinger dated 10 June 2014.
1. Location: Claymont, Delaware, USA.
2. Date: 29 June 2014.
3. Link: MUFON case 57833.
Multiple orange-red UAP up to 24 in number. Silent and floated irregularly.
Moved of silently. One object dropped something that “burnt wildly down to the
ground.” Residual fragment found. Submitted by Dave Segal, MUFON FI-PA and DE.
Received by frontier Analysis ltd on 21 July 2014.
4. Sample description:
·
Two pieces. One was four cm by two cm; other
irregular shape three cm wide at widest point
·
Weighed 0.78 grams.
5. Analysis:
By: Frontier Analysis Ltd.
Methods: Infrared spectroscopy;
microscopic examination.
Conclusions:
·
Greater than 50 % of palmitic acid, dispersed in
fine glass fibres
·
Trace amounts of quartz and an unidentified
ester-type impurity
·
Fragment has the appearance of insulation.
However, presence of palmitic acid is unusual.
6. Image: Yes.
7. Reference:
Technical service response number
UT087. Frontier Analysis Ltd. P A Budinger dated 26 September 2014.
1. Location: Not given. Named as Sierra” case.
2. Date: Withheld by Vallee.
3. Link: Not given by Vallee.
4. Sample description: Two
samples.
5. Analysis:
Sierra 1
99.38% titanium by weight. Al
4020ppm; Sc 755 ppm; Fe 561ppm; Mg 321ppm; V 202ppm; Cr 197 ppm; Mn 131 ppm; Ni
137 ppm; Ca 73ppm; K 16 ppm.
Isotopes:
Ti46 – Standard is 8.25% sample
is 8.7 and 7.66.
Ti47 – Standard is 7.44 sample is
5.33 and 3.83.
Ti48 – Standard is 73.72 sample
is 73.91 nd 76.56
Ti49 – Standard is 5.41 sample is
5.76 and 5.26.
Sierra 2
Iron 98.35% by weight; Mn 8543
ppm; Cr 3500 ppm; Cu 2032 ppm; NI 613 ppm; Sc 592 ppm; Co 94 ppm; Zn 76 ppm; Al
63 ppm; Ca 10 ppm; V 7 ppm.
Isotopes yet to be done.
6. Image: Yes.
7. Reference:
Vallee, J. “What do we know about
the material composition of UFOs?” Talk at “Contact In the Desert.”2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnPHt7zfd0I
ADDENDUM
The following case is frequented
cited in the UFO literature as a fragment. However, there was no visual UAP
sighting associated with the case.
1. Location: Tiffin, Ohio, USA.
2. Date: 2003.
3. Link” No UAP. “Ed” found a
piece of metal in his side yard when raking up leaves. Apparently been there
since winter.
4. Sample description:
·
Irregular shaped metal “blob”
·
Six inch by two point five inch by half inch
thick (maximum.)
5. Analyses:
(A) By: Reiter – 2003
Methods:
Scanning electron microscope.
EDS. Geiger counter.
Conclusions:
·
EDS – primarily aluminium, traces of carbon and
silicon
·
Density right for appropriate mass weight
·
Not noticeably radioactive.
(B) By: Dr Ayengar via frontier
Analysis Ltd.
Methods: EDS analysis.
Conclusions:
·
Impure alloy of aluminium (76.5%) containing a
small amount of silicon (24%), 10/1% carbon, 2.4% iron; 8.2% oxygen;
0.2%calcium
·
Metal blob that appears to have solidified in an
unconfirmed manner from a molten state
·
Not exotic or unearthly.
(C) By: Olson, Martins, Topolski
– 19 July 2015. From Bennie Foggin labelled “Ohio Ed’s metal sample.” Sample
was less than one cubic centimetre.
Methods: scanning electron
microscope; energy dispersive spectroscopy.
Conclusions:
·
Fairly simple composition
·
Specimen not composed of a common alloy
·
Ag and Mg appear artificially added – whereas Si
and Fe content likely impurities.
6. Image: No.
7. References:
1. Olson, R.; Martins, L.; Topolski,
M. at https://medium.com/@larrycekander/larry-cekander-presents-503f1eebe078
2. Reiter, NA and Mason P. “Two
cases of unusual sky-fall aluminium metal from Ohio.”
Http://www.theavaolonfoundation.org/docs/metal.html
Update as at 28 November 2018.
Following the welcome imput from a number of researchers, I am in the process of preparing version 2.2 of the catalogue.
Update as at 28 November 2018.
Following the welcome imput from a number of researchers, I am in the process of preparing version 2.2 of the catalogue.
Wonderful work. Bravo
ReplyDelete