.
The Roswell corner
.
A double standard for skeptics?
.
Kevin Randle has been talking about a “double standard” when it comes to witness testimonies. According to Randle, skeptics are supposed to doubt Charles Moore as much as we are supposed
to doubt any Roswell witness talking
about a crashed spaceship. Randle seems to miss the point of why people question a stories validity. If somebody says they saw a witch on a broom crash into the ground at Roswell, would Randle feel that their testimony is just as valid as somebody who reported an alien spaceship
crashed? I know of nobody making this claim but is an example of the standards
of probability. In weighing the story of Charles Moore, we have some interesting
testimony that seems to agree with what he has stated.
The Marcel’s described purple fig•
ures on the beams. Brazel described tape with purple figures on it in 1947. Even Loretta Proctor mentioned the tape. Charles Moore, and a few others, stated they used this kind of tape on the reflectors they used. Granted these people stated this after
all the stories were available but his description is plausible and the drawings of the ML-307s describe using tape.
Brazel reported finding debris that • seemed to indicate something larger than a single weather balloon and radar reflector. Moore was part of the team that was launching balloon
flights not far from the Foster Ranch, which had multiple weather balloons and they had used these specific radar reflectors before.
Marcel posed for pictures with some • debris that shows the type of reflectors
and balloons used by Moore and the NYU team.
A flight/cluster of balloons was • launched on the 4th of June, 1947 that was apparently never recovered.
This flight was launched on a date that would propel the balloons
towards the northeast and the weather conditions on that date COULD HAVE caused the balloons to land on the Foster Ranch. Moore was part of the team that launched those balloons.
Now, let’s examine the known specifics about the Roswell crashed spaceship story.
An alien spaceship crashed in the • desert north of Roswell and Brazel found some of the debris (and maybe
some bodies). No documentation
in 1947 supports this claim. No photographs, pieces, contemporary documents, or anything else has ever shown these stories to be true.
Alien bodies and debris was trans•
ported by numerous aircraft out of Roswell to various locations in the US. No documents, photographs, or anything else exists demonstrating this was true.
A great number of people on and • off base were aware of the crash and what was found. No documents, private diaries (that can be verified as authentic and written in 1947), letters of complaint written in the 1940s, private letters written in the 1940s, personal photographs, or anything else indicating that something
extraordinary happened at Roswell in 1947 exists.
Not everyone on base and in town • agrees that something extraordinary
happened at Roswell that summer
of 1947.
When examining these issues and weighing
the probabilities, one can make the following statement, “It is far more likely that Charles Moore’s cluster of balloons with possible reflectors attached caused the debris field at the Foster Ranch than an alien spaceship.” This is why the statements
of Charles Moore are more likely to be accepted as factual than the statements
of all the story tellers who claim they saw aliens or alien debris. Randle needs to provide evidence that supports these stories told by aging witnesses, who, after several decades of silence, suddenly remembered the events of 1947 as being something extraordinary.
.
New Roswell parts found?
The end of April put an interesting email in my in box linking me to a story from the Roswell Daily Record. Apparently,
somebody has been foraging through all the Sci-Fi channel’s debris bags and found something they did not understand using an electron microscope.
The statement said it was Aluminum
silicate, which can not be naturally found at the Foster Ranch. Of course, man has been living in the area for many years. It could easily have come from man and not something alien. In one article, the group analyzing the piece claimed to have run out of money and they desire public assistance in analyzing the piece! Now that is amazing. Robert Bigelow has promised millions of dollars to MUFON to investigate this exact thing. The SCI-FI channel, who organized the dig to get the pieces out of the field, is supposedly funding this kind of research. Finally, the Fund for UFO research (FUFOR) has money
for this kind of research. Now UFOlogists
are pleading for money to analyze a simple piece of metal? If people are going
to give them money, I would ask for receipts and promises to have the material
actually tested because it sounds like a scam to me. I am not going to hold my breath for any startling revelations.
Only time will tell if this is the “smoking gun” so desired by UFO proponents. With a request for people to give them money to “study” the piece of metal, it sounds like this one is going to be a “dud” as well. What was it that P.T. Barnum said? This may be appropriate here. It will probably end up in the “Whatever happened to...” column in a few years.
.
Ramey memo non-update
Kevin Randle wrote about the Ramey “memo” in his blog. His entry focuses on the security aspect of the memo and how unlikely it would be that Ramey would allow such a highly classified message
(assuming it is one) to be exposed to a photograph. As a military man, I agree with him but that does not mean it is impossible,
just highly unlikely.
Needless to say, his commentary drew the typical excessively long-winded response from David Rudiak in the comments section.
Among Rudiak’s words were the accusations that Randle was taking on a “debunker” mentality. I could only watch in amazement as the comments in this blog entry grew in number and, as always, nothing was accomplished.
It has been almost seven years since the “memo” surfaced as a “smoking gun” on the Sci-Fi channel. It had already been news in the UFO field for several years before
this. As I noted last issue, I have seen no further progress on determining what type of document it is or what it appears to state. I am sure David Rudiak and others
feel the memo can be clearly read but they haven’t convinced anybody outside their little circle. Being able to convince others with the evidence is what counts. Maybe that study proposed by Houran and Randle needs to be done. It is up to those making the claim to make it happen.
.
Test dummy officer talks....again
Lt. Col. (ret) Roy Madson was interviewed
by Anthony Bragalia and he told roughly the same story he stated back in 1997 about the USAF report. It is not very big news but some of the comments
inspired me to write the article “Who’s the Dummy?” on page 16 .
.
More incorrect “Facts”
Newsblaze writer Dale Huffman wrote that the Roswell UFO crash was real based on two simple FACTS. They were that the US military reported the crash as genuine and the other was that they changed the story one day later. Both of his FACTS are incorrect. The press release mentioned no “crash”. It only mentioned the recovery of the remains of the disc which “landed” on the ranch. This story was changed only hours later and not a day. Huffman could not even get his two simple FACTS correct, which means the rest of his article is probably as poorly researched
and written.
The latest news concerning the greatest
secret never kept comes from Anthony
Bragalia, who is also promoting his research associated with the re-release of Carey and Schmitt’s book on Roswell. This news appeared on various UFO blogs and web sites as some of the most important
Roswell news since Frank Kaufmann spoke to Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt. According to Bragalia, the Battelle institute
received a piece of the crashed spaceship, analyzed it, and started studying
Nickel-Titanium alloys. In order to duplicate
the material, this information was “fed” to the Navy Ordinance Lab (NOL) that eventually developed a material called Nitinol, which has shape memory characteristics. Early progress reports by the Battelle institute are missing including
one which has a “phase diagram” on how to alloy Nickel and Titanium. This is red meat for Roswell proponents as it implies
there is a cover-up.
Bragalia’s entire series of articles is a mishmash of speculation and indirect mention of various “newly discovered documents”, which he does not identify and, according to him, demonstrates all this is true. In fact, there is little one can follow in his article. The only official document
specifically identified is the missing progress report. It is almost as if Bragalia does not want everyone to figure out his research. Numerous times, Bragalia takes great leaps that are ignored by less than careful readers. He uses words like, “suggests”,
“appears”, “infer”, “probably”, and “may” to draw his conclusions. While his article sounds like it is shocking new evidence, it is really speculation based on what he thinks these things mean.
.
.
Disconnecting the Battelle-Nitinol link
According to Bragalia’s article he found a document that was earth shattering but would not reveal what the document was called or who wrote it. He hinted at it by stating:
This confirmation is given in a brief footnote
found in a study by one of Nitinol’s “official” inventors at the U.S. Naval Lab. In that military report on Nitinol, the author
footnotes a 1949 Battelle study which clearly pertains to the refinement of Titanium
and Nickel. The citation relates to a “phase diagram” that examines states of matter and how the two metals could be successfully alloyed...we know that this “progress report” offers the first “phase diagram” ever produced to attempt to successfully alloy Titanium and Nickel.1
The article that Bragalia appears to be stating as his source is a 1972 UNCLASSIFIED
technical report written by Frederick
Wang, who studied Nitinol shortly after it was created. The document is Navy Ordinance Laboratory Technical Report
(NOLTR) 72-4, which is titled On the NiTi (Nitinol) Martensitic Transition Part 1. It can easily be found on-line with just a little searching by anyone using google. Bragalia neglects to tell his readers that the progress report was only mentioned by Wang because he was discussing the history of Titanium-Nickel alloy research
and it is only mentioned briefly amongst a myriad of studies conducted between 1939 and 1961! Bragalia’s description
about the “progress report” is incorrect. He incorrectly states that the progress report had the FIRST phase diagram
for Nickel and Titanium. According
to Wang’s technical report, there were phase diagrams for Nickel-Titanium prior to 1949 but they were not complete and had conflicting information. Dr. Wang also states the following about the phase diagram found in this progress report:
Craighead, Fawn and Eastwood6 (1949) carried out a limited study of the Ti-Ni phase diagram up to approximately 11.5 at.% nickel within a limited temperature
range but did not define the eutectic or eutectoid temperatures. (my emphasis in bold)2
A quick check on the Nickel content in Nitinol reveals that it is about 55% Nickel.
Now I am not a metallurgist but this seems to indicate the phase diagram in the “progress report”, which only had data for up to 11.5% Nickel, did not even cover the region where Nitinol exists. If accurate, this destroys the claim made by Bragalia that this report was “fed” to the NOL so they could create Nitinol.
In an apparent attempt to make the report
appear highly classified, Bragalia claims that there are only three other references to this report ever found and they are always footnotes. What does he expect to find in technical documents? If Wang is correct and it is a “limited study”, it would not be referenced very often. I also think he really means that he could only find three other references from his on-line searches. A quick google search found two other documents that footnoted
this report. I am fairly confident that if one examined all the documents from the late 1940s and 1950s pertaining
to Titanium based alloys, they would discover more references to the progress report. The idea the document is “highly classified” seems unlikely when one discovers
that Wang’s technical report and the other two documents I found were all unclassified.
Bragalia seems to unrealistically assume that ALL research reports generated in the ‘40s and ‘50s are to be found on the Internet. If they are not, then the “obvious”
conclusion he draws is that they were deliberately hidden for various nefarious
reasons. He also implies that the Battelle research was prompted solely by the discovery of the Roswell “memory metal”. This conveniently ignores the intense
post-war interest of the Air Force in developing strong, lightweight, heat-resistant alloys for the emerging jet airplane
and engine technologies, which Titanium continues to play an important role to this day.
A search of the Internet for the contract number AF33(038)-3736 reveals many documents and all involve research associated
with Titanium and/or Titanium based alloys. There is nothing about shape memory alloys, no mention of Roswell,
and there isn’t even a specific reference
to the Titanium-Nickel alloy. Bruce Hutchinson found two reports by the Battelle
institute concerning Titanium and Titanium based alloys listed in the Library of Congress on-line catalog. One is dated April 2, 1948 and the other is dated March 15, 1949. They probably cover the same information as the two “missing” progress reports. Progress report #1, which according
to Bragalia, is the study of the Roswell UFO metal itself, is probably just an earlier study of Titanium based alloys. Since the contract appears to be about studying Titanium
based alloys, there is no reason to suspect it was to create a shape memory alloy (SMA).
Corsoism and rewriting history
Retired Lt. Col. Phillip Corso had made the claim in his book that he had fed various companies parts from the Roswell
spaceship so they could develop things like microelectronics and lasers. Most of this is complete rubbish and takes away from the hard work and great accomplishments of engineers and scientists.
I refer to this as Corsoism, which I define as, “The process by which Roswell crashed spaceship proponents claim the established scientific, academic, or engineering
achievement of others is not due to their own abilities but because of assistance from alien technology and/or information”. Bragalia has embraced Corsoism in order to perpetuate a new Roswell myth and apparently elevate his position as a top-notch Roswell researcher.
However, his version of Nitinol’s history is wrong and would probably be considered ludicrous by most objective and informed observers.
While Bragalia seems to imply that the knowledge of SMAs appeared only after 1947, there are references on-line (wikipedia
among others) that state this property
was being observed in several alloys in the 1930s. Most important to note is that Nitinol was not originally designed to be a SMA. William J. Buehler, documented the origins of Nitinol at the White Oak Laboratory alumni association (WOLAA) website . One can also read about the discovery of Nitinol in an article written by George Kaufmann and Isaac Mayo for the journal, The Chemical Educator. Bragalia
mentions that the history of Nitinol as “murky” and “conflicted” and creates all sorts of exotic reasons for this . Perhaps it is murky for him but it seems that those who understand the subject have no doubts about its origins.
Buehler explains that his initial effort was to find a metal alloy that had a high enough temperature resistance so it could be used in missile nose cones re-entering the earth’s atmosphere. When Nitinol was created it exhibited some unique characteristics that required further
study. Dr. Wang was brought in to help with analyzing the atomic structure of the new alloy. A few years after Nitinol was manufactured by Buehler’s team, a piece of wire made of Nitinol was brought to a meeting with an accordion shape. It was meant to demonstrate the ability of the metal to avoid fatigue failure. One of those at the meeting, Dr. David Muzzey, held it up to his pipe lighter and, to everyone’s
surprise, the metal straightened out. This was a true “Eureka” moment! If they were actually trying to reproduce the properties of the mythical Roswell memory metal, one would think they would know this would happen. Based on the histories I listed (and not documents
I do not name) it appears that the development of Nitinol is an advancement
based on good engineering.
Bragalia states that this history of Nitinol is false. He provides no hard facts or actual
documents to demonstrate this is true. Instead, we leap into “Roswell land”, where conjecture is transformed into facts. According to Bragalia, the official history about the discovery of Nitinol is false because:
The official discovery date is not 1. clear.
Different reasons offered for its de2.
velopment.
Different descriptions of its discov3.
ery.
The first claim, that the official discovery date is unclear, has a lot to do with Bragalia
misrepresenting or misunderstanding the process involved. The selection for the alloy was started in 1958 and was first created in 1959. It was not until 1962 that Dr. Wang came in and began analyzing the material on an atomic level. All these events give the impression that the discovery
has numerous dates. Claims that there are numerous dates on various web sites probably has more to do with which dates were selected by the authors as the “official” discovery year.
The different reasons for its development may have something to do with the metal being used for re-entry nose cones. That nature would probably make the reason for its development classified. The Time article Bragalia refers to from 1968 gives a different reason. This possibly had to do with keeping the real reason classified
at the time. It is also possible that this use was investigated at some point and mentioned to the writer, who misinterpreted
what was stated. I would not consider this article’s statement (which might be erroneous for various reasons) as a reason to dismiss what Buehler states was the original reason for the alloy’s development.
To try and bolster his claim, Bragalia mentions an unnamed “Berkley source” as stating it was developed for use in submarine hulls. This “Berkeley source” appears to be somebody named “Charlie” who claims to have worked at “Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory”. They were handed pieces of an alloy and told to “figure it out” with the intention the material was to be used for submarine
hull design. This is all nonsense and an anonymous source is not considered to be very reliable. How do we even know he was working on Nitinol samples? It is an unsubstantiated story being used as a fact, which means it proves absolutely nothing.
The different descriptions about the discovery
of Nitinol’s SMA characteristics are also consistent. Bragalia decides to make something out of nothing by stating
he could find no record of Dr. David Muzzey. The implication is that no such person existed. Just because the internet only mentions Dr. Muzzey in this context does not mean he did not exist. I doubt Bragalia bothered to check the Navy Ordinance
Lab for that time period or attempted
anything more than a “google” search. Bragalia also found a different version about the discovery of Nitinol. As is typical in his undocumented articles, Bragalia never tells anyone his sources. The actual source for this story is Uri Geller, who claimed this in a discussion with Bob Couttie in his book, Forbidden knowledge. An excerpt can be found on the web with just a little bit of searching. Uri’s claim is not supported by anything and there is no evidence to suggest he was even in the Navy labs as a direct witness.
The claim can not be considered reliable.
Spoon bending
Continuing this charade, Bragalia tells everyone that the government did tests to see if Nitinol could be affected through mind control by using “psychics”. For once, Bragalia gives us a source. He states this comes from the document ”Influence
on Metal Alloy Nitinol”, written by Dr. Eldon Byrd. If one does a quick check with Google, they arrive at this document but the title is not what Bragalia states. Once again, Bragalia fails to tell the reader
that this was NOT an official study by the US Navy and only a paper written by Byrd about....Uri Geller! The actual title of the document is “Uri Geller’s influence on the metal alloy Nitinol”. Geller is the only “psychic” exposed to testing Nitinol, which busts the claim of Bragalia that more than one “psychic” was involved. The fact that Bragalia never mentions Geller’s name may have something to do with Geller being a suspected fraud. The mention of Geller’s name might suggest the research was flawed and Bragalia probably did not want that to happen.
Martin Gardner exposed much of what Byrd wrote as erroneous in his May/June 1977 Humanist article “Geller, Gulls, and Nitinol” (this can also be found on the internet).
According to the paper that Bragalia
cites as his source, the Geller test had occurred at “The Isis Center of the Naval Surface Weapons Center”. Gardner’s work demonstrated it actually was performed outside the Naval Surface Warfare Center in a new age haven called, “The Isis Center for Research and Study of the Esoteric Arts and Sciences”! Byrd has also claimed that various analyses and studies were done by the Navy labs, which the Navy denies. Dr. Wang does not remember performing
any of Byrd’s tests, so Byrd makes the claim that Dr. Wang was told to deny his tests were performed. Byrd could easily have produced the documents to refute this but it appears he never did. Bragalia
swallows Byrd’s story hook, line, and sinker and asked Dr. Wang what he knew of Byrd’s claim. According to Bragalia, Wang stated, “Byrd says a lot of things.”3 Bragalia ignored the implication of Wang’s diplomatic response, which was that Byrd said a lot of things that were probably not true or exaggerations. Looking at Byrd’s record concerning the Uri Geller incident, among other things, I can understand Dr. Wang’s response.
Wright is wrong
Other items mentioned by Bragalia that he uses to confirm his suspicions
are speculative jumps trying to link various individuals to the discovery and the Air Force’s interest in Nitinol. General
Exon, who told Kevin Randle/Don Schmitt all sorts of stories about Roswell, is quoted about the Roswell craft being constructed of an alloy of Titanium and another metal. Exon would later state that he only heard rumors and had no first hand knowledge about Roswell. Bragalia fails to mention this and seizes on this statement and tries to link it to Nitinol. Considering that Titanium alloys
were being used by the aerospace industry in the 1950s and 60s (including the SR-71), this is no great surprise and proves nothing.
Bragalia then states the memo written in 1947 by General Schulgen, describes precisely some of the characteristics of Nitinol! In his greatest leap of logic (or maybe it is faith), Bragalia writes the following
about the Shulgen memo:
In the verified version of this memo is found a section entitled “Items of Construction.”
Schulgen instructs his officers to be aware of flying objects and their materials of construction. He specifically notes the “unusual fabrication methods to achieve extreme lightweight” and that the material is of a “composite construction...
using various combinations of metals.”
Schulgen is describing precisely (my emphasis) some of the very characteristics
of Nitinol. Just like the Roswell debris material, it is an “extreme lightweight” intermetallic alloy. As a novel “composite construction,” it is created by an “unusual fabrication” method that “uses a combination
of metals”- perhaps like Titanium and Nickel.4
Completely ignored by Bragalia is this statement in the Schulgen memo that precedes the “requirements” section of the memo:
For the purpose of analysis and evaluation of the so-called “flying saucer” phenomenon,
the object sighted is being assumed to be a manned aircraft, of Russian origin, and based on the perspective thinking and actual accomplishments of the Germans.5
So, these methods of construction have to do with how the Soviets would construct
a jet powered aircraft that might be producing the flying saucer reports. Additionally, Bragalia only delivers parts of a memo he wants everyone to read. The pertinent full sentences concerning the materials for constructing these hypothetical
Soviet craft reads:
Composite or sandwich construction utilizing
various combinations of metals, plastics, and perhaps balsa wood...Unusual
fabrication methods to achieve extreme light weight and structural stability particularly
in connection with great capacity for fuel storage.6
Completely missing from Bragalia’s missive
are the words “plastics” and, of all things, “balsa wood”. He also deleted the “sandwich construction” item. As for the “unusual fabrication” statement, he failed to mention it was focusing on fuel storage capacity. Bragalia is cherry picking and is grossly misrepresenting what is found in the Schulgen memo. Most important in all of this is that not one of these items is “PRECISELY” specifying the characteristics
of Nitinol. I am not even sure if Bragalia knows what the “characteristics”
of Nitinol really are. The Schulgen memo makes no mention of SMAs and I could probably suggest numerous alloys
besides Nitinol that have the same characteristics as those mentioned in the memo.
Preaching to the choir
Most of what Bragalia wrote is based on guesswork without understanding
the process used to develop Nitinol. Buehler’s discovery was a great achievement
for him and Bragalia is basically calling him a fraud. Additionally, Bragalia
‘s interview with Dr. Wang appears to have been a fishing expedition used to get Dr. Wang to say something that could be used. Once Bragalia revealed his true intentions, Dr. Wang probably understood
what was happening and did not want to discuss Roswell. Bragalia has learned from the best Roswell researchers
that when you ask vague questions, you can interpret the answers any way you desire.
As for the “missing” progress reports that Bragalia claims he is trying to locate, it is my opinion that they show nothing related to Roswell. If this is the case, I predict that Bragalia will state that the reports have been altered or he will find something vague in the report that he will attempt to link to Roswell.
While the head-nodding Roswell worshipers
are going to praise Bragalia, those that examine the claims objectively
will probably come to the conclusion that it is another example of very sloppy research. Bragalia is being intellectually dishonest by purposefully misrepresenting
what many of these actual documents state and not identifying them so others can see what he is describing. This is a replay of the missing Roswell nurse saga. Exotic claims are made but, when closely examined, they turn out to be poorly researched
and false. Of course, Bragalia is working closely with Don Schmitt and Tom Carey, who are professionals at this kind of research. What do they say about birds of a feather?
Special thanks to Bruce Hutchinson for his efforts In identifying some of the documents described and BAUT member “SAM5” for pointing me towards the document written by Dr. Wang.
The “SUNRISE” connection
One site I stumbled upon during my internet
searches was the “Sunrise” website, which is apparently run by an anonymous Australian Researcher who had contacted Carey and Schmitt in 2008 about the Nitinol-
Battelle connection. The website is a lengthy pdf document that rambles on for hundreds of pages with the same type of speculation performed by Bragalia (except
they do list sources). The author adds they choose to remain anonymous because they fear retribution from the US government and various “right wing” individuals.
I think this is melodramatic if you ask me. Has anyone ever been actually
harmed for researching Roswell?
About six months after contacting the Schmitt/Carey team, an “American researcher”,
who appears to be Bragalia, contacted the Australian researcher. Bragalia never mentioned the “Sunrise” website as any source of information in his articles about Nitinol and gave the impression he did most of the work. “Sunrise”
may not mind Bragalia’s failure to mention where he started his adventure but it just doesn’t look right to me. You be the judge.....
Quelle: SUNlite 2/2009
4615 Views