UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

The Roswell Memory Metal Saga: Before The Roswell-Nitinol Controversy, There Was…The Roswell-Nitinol Controversy! by Nick Redfern

mmetal19.jpg

As regular readers of The UFO Iconoclast(s) will be acutely aware, for some time now researcher Tony Bragalia has been digging deep into the very intriguing, reported links between (A) the events outside of Roswell, New Mexico in the summer of 1947; (B) the recovery of so-called “memory-metal” from the crash-site on the Foster Ranch; and (C) the subsequent development by the United States of its very own equivalent to the curious debris.

The collective data, revelations and interviews with a whole variety of informed sources secured by Tony are made more notable by the fact that a good argument can be made that – if aliens really did crash in New Mexico on that long-gone day – it was the secret analysis and study of the anomalous debris at Roswell that allowed the US to take the lead in perfecting its very own version(s) of the recovered material.

In his August 10, 2010 post, titled Roswell, Battelle & Memory Metal Tony wrote the following:

“Some of the Roswell crash material was reported by several credible witnesses to have had the ability to ‘morph’ or change back to its original shape (shape recovery). This ‘intelligent metal’ material is today known as Shape Memory Alloy. The best example of this is a material is comprised of Titanium and Nickel and is called ‘Nitinol.’ The concept of engineered shape recovery is a thoroughly ‘post-Roswell’ concept. All major work in creating products with ‘material memory’ was performed post-Roswell. And all of this work was initially directed by the US Government. Shape Memory Alloy is distinctly ‘Roswellian’ and mimics in many respects some of the debris at Roswell.”

And Tony continues to dig deep into the issue of how the Roswell affair may have impacted upon – or directly influenced – the development of Shape Memory Alloys such as Nitinol.

body19.jpg

It’s worth noting, however, that the Roswell-Nitinol connection is not a new one. There is another angle to the story that still links the United States’ early research into “memory-metal” and Nitinol with the crashed UFO controversy – but from a very different perspective. It is a story that I first heard in 2003 and which was published in 2005, in my book Body Snatchers in the Desert.

col-insig.jpg

One of the people I interviewed for the book was an elderly man I dubbed “the Colonel,” who had a long background within US Intelligence, and particularly so with the Defense Intelligence Agency. The Colonel had a lot to say on Roswell – none of which had anything at all to do with literal crashed UFOs and aliens, but that had everything to do with the idea that the tales of wrecked flying saucers, the corpses of ETs, Mogul balloons, and weather balloons were all deliberately introduced to hide a darker secret – one focused upon high-altitude balloon-based experiments using human guinea-pigs.

skyhook19.jpg

Interestingly, one of the things the Colonel wanted to speak to me about was the Nitinol connection to Roswell. And, before anyone claims that I’m merely jumping on the bandwagon, I’m most assuredly not. As I mentioned, the following story was published by me in Body Snatchers 6 years ago, and was based upon a now-8-years-old interview.

According to the Colonel, in the early 1960s – possibly around Christmas of 1962, the Colonel thought, but was admittedly not entirely certain - it was suspected that a Soviet spy known to be operating in Washington, D.C., was receiving classified data (of a non-UFO nature, I should stress) from someone allied to the U.S. Army’s Foreign Technology Division (FTD). A plan was hatched to reveal bogus information to the traitor that was very specific, and that would be easily traced back to the Soviet contact when it was duly passed on - thus identifying the traitor, too.

The concocted story, stated the Colonel, was that, in 1961, the FTD had got its hands on a quantity of strange, metallic debris from a crashed UFO that was being analyzed under cover of the strictest security. This story was duly, and carefully, leaked to the suspected Soviet sympathizer and, apparently, the ruse worked: the US traitor forwarded the information on to his Russian handler and arrests were quickly and quietly made, and without any real secrets having been compromised.

But, said the Colonel, officialdom added to the ruse by exposing the traitor to a very limited amount of research into Nitinol – to try and emphasize in the traitor’s mind, and ultimately in the mind of his Soviet handler, that this was indeed extraterrestrial material of a definitively unique, “memory-metal” nature.

nito19.jpg

To expose such groundbreaking material to a source that was potentially hostile to the US, said the Colonel – even under strictly controlled and monitored circumstances - was deemed an extremely risky and fraught move. He said, however, that the dicey maneuver worked, and the traitor in the FTD came to believe the material to which he had been exposed really was extraterrestrial – rather than the result of the groundbreaking work of US scientists.

Interestingly, the Colonel added that this led to rumors in circulation within elements of officialdom that the Army’s FTD had got its hands on crashed UFO materials of a memory-metal nature.

Potentially of relevance to this issue is that in 1997 one of the most controversial UFO books of all time surfaced: The Day After Roswell, co-written by Lt. Col. Philip J. Corso and UFO Magazine’s Bill Birnes. Corso just happened to be a prime-mover within the Army’s FTD in the early 1960s. According to Corso, he had hands-on access while with the FTD to certain, recovered materials from the Roswell crash of 1947 – materials that Corso asserted until his dying day were extra-terrestrial in origin.

The Colonel, however, told me he believed that, wittingly or unwittingly, Corso’s story could be traced back to the ruse laid down to smoke out the Soviets’ informant. How this all relates to the Corso story is not fully clear; but it is an intriguing slant on the whole controversy. And it should be noted that it was during this precise time period in which Nitinol came to the fore - 1961-1962 - that Corso served with the FTD, and when the Soviet spy saga was allegedly unfolding.

How this all ties in with Tony Bragalia’s research is far from clear either. But, to me, there are several issues of importance and relevance to this whole puzzle.

With respect to the Colonel’s story, it seems to me there are only two major possibilities: the first is that he was telling the truth, and that there really was a Roswell-Nitinol connection – but it was a connection borne out of a secret operation based around deception, psychological warfare, espionage and concocted tales positing a Roswell-UFO-Nitinol link to smoke-out a communist sympathizer and his Soviet ally.

The other possibility is that the Colonel was being utterly deceptive when he spoke with me, and that he secretly suspected one day someone would finally uncover a real ET angle to the Roswell-Nitinol story – and the complex chain of events, too – that Tony is currently investigating. And, as a result, the Colonel attempted to try and deflect such Nitinol research by placing the story in a wholly down-to-earth context, rather than one involving literal aliens and a crashed UFO.

I have no idea which scenario is correct – and maybe you have other ideas. But, I will say this: the fact that a Roswell-Nitinol story was given to me 8 years ago, and was published half-a-decade ago by me, leads me to believe that there most assuredly is a Roswell-Nitinol link to be uncovered, analyzed and, finally, understood.

crash19.jpg

Whether or not that link will ultimately lead us down a path towards a crashed UFO and secret back-engineering of the unusual debris found in the desert of New Mexico nearly 64 years ago, or in the direction of a bizarre effort to smoke-out Soviet spies, remains to be seen – in my view, at least!

109 Comments:

  • Nick wrote: "He said, however, that the dicey maneuver worked, and the traitor in the FTD came to believe the material to which he had been exposed really was extraterrestrial – rather than the result of the groundbreaking work of US scientists.

    What happened to the traitor? Was he turned, arrested, did he defect?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, January 19, 2011  

  • So, at the very least, this would seem to indicate that the idea of associating a crashed UFO with a type of metal with anomalous shape memory properties being held by the FTD emerged no later than 1962, and from the US intelligence community, no less.

    By Blogger Larry, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • Greetings friends,

    Already pointed, signaled, warned (dunno the word to use!) by several (Tim Printy and humblely myself, for example) and without offense, it is awesome to note again and again this probable confirmation bias or narrative process consisting to absolutly link Roswell and Titanium and/or titanium alloys.

    I believe Radar targets envelopp were suprising in comparison to tinfoils or paper for anyone facing it for the first time, and that's right they have a relative memory form property, like "Kevlar" ie (?). That's normal for an apparatus which must resist to hight altitude winds and they were concepted for that. There exist documentations where the Army asked to have better resistance of the ML307 model after the ML307A, which was not enough resisting, too.

    The processings to obtain pure titanium (1939), properties, experiments on titanium alloys started before Roswell 1947. Battelle documents "exhumed" by Tony are totaly part of this standard research processing step by step imho. I dont see any "smocking gun" or sudain technological boom, as Battelle experimented different alloys whose formulas and properties are far from Nitinol too.

    The mythic Roswell reverse engineering is rather unsuccessful! You know...).
    We must wait the 60's to have really memory alloys and you know the properties are temperatures dependant.

    Soviets themselves think to use titanium when they concepted Alpha class submarines since 1957, showing that in other countries, such step by step applicated researches existed.

    And many more points already raised by "Skeptics" or "pragmatic".

    In essence, the link(s) between Roswell and "memory alloys" or "titanium" sounds absolutly artificial and part of the Roswell myth narrative elaboration processings (in an anthrrpological point of view) intentionaly or not in my humble opinion.

    Without offense.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • This 'Colonel' only spoke to you after reading Corso's book (and presumably after a few other Roswell books, articles, watching TV shows, etc).

    He is anonymous, and will remain so, I assume. The traitor in the FTD is also anonymous.

    Why attach any importance to anything he told you? You do not accept the 'Roswell was ET' story. Are you now saying that because this colonel's tale fits in partially with Tony Bragalia's Nitinol ideas (and 'confirms' part of Corso's tales) it is worth considering as a disinformation plot?

    It seems to me, Nick, that you are just adding more complexities to the Roswell myth. Haven't we got enough already?

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • Nick:

    Just a follow up to my previous posting:

    I have reread your two penultimate paragraphs, the one starting "With respect to the colonel's story..." and the following one.

    Are there really only two possibilities here? I suggest that there is a third one. But you don't need me to tell you what it is, do you?

    Regards.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • Sourcerer:

    Admittedly, neither I nor the interviewee have the answers to the full story, and by his - the Colonel's - own admission, it was what he was told, rather than being directly involved.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • CDA:

    Yes, I am indeed saying that this somehow ties in with Tony B's info, and yes I am indeed saying that at least a part of the Roswell-Nitinol story may be tied in with a disinfo plot.

    Now (as I speculated in the post) the nature of the plot could be that he deceived me, or (as he told me) that the Roswell-Nitinol connection had nothing to do with ETs and more to do with a strange operation to snag a Soviet spy and his US accomplice.

    That 8 years ago I was given (and 6 years ago published) a story that linked Roswell and Nitinol - and now, today, Roswell and Nitinol are being deeply discussed at this blog via Tony B's work - is something I find very intriguing.

    Some might say that the Colonel's near-decade-old story linking Roswell and Nitinol somewhat anticipated today's Roswell-Nitinol research is entirely coincidental. Me? I'm not so sure - which is precisely why I wrote the post, to bring it to people's attention, and to see if we can take things further.

    Re your question as to the reason why I attach importance to the things he told me, again, it's in part that (in my view) he seemed to anticipate that one day Roswell and Nitinol would - years later - become an issue and chose to discuss it from his perspective.

    And when things like that happen, I believe it's an area worthy of research and comment.

    In your second comment-post, you asked: "Are there really only two possibilities here?"

    No of course there aren't only two, which is precisely why I wrote the following on this very matter:

    QUOTE: "I have no idea which scenario is correct – and maybe you have other ideas."

    So, yes, my words make it clear that I'm allowing for other scenarios and ideas.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • "Some might say that the Colonel's near-decade-old story linking Roswell and Nitinol somewhat anticipated today's Roswell-Nitinol research is entirely coincidental."

    It may be or it may not be. Tony Bragalia can tell us if he had read Corso's book before embarking on his own research. I have not read Corso's book. I am curious to know if your colonel informant had. Also, if he was only relating a story that HE had heard, then you realise this sets it all back one further step, i.e. it becomes a third-hand story instead of a second-hand one. (Or is it fourth instead of third?).

    Perhaps Tony can clear up one thing. Did you, Tony, read Corso before beginning your research? And is titanium or nitinol mentioned therein? I ask because I am ignorant of Corso.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • Nick Redfern seems a bit contradictory to me.

    1) In Body Snatchers, he says that Nitinol was used in a "fake story" that was developed to "smoke out" Soviet agents in the early 1960s. Military/Intelligence placed the story out there of a crashed UFO from a dozen years prior with strange "memory metal" debris having been found with technological advantages.

    2) In supporting Mac Tonnies' Cryptoterrestrial thesis, Nick cited a former Intelligence agent with an entirely different story. He told him that the material was actually from a bizarre balloon-like vehicle composed of unknown materials to science, designed and crashed by Cryptoterrestrials!

    3) Now, another of his sources tell him that the real story was that the metal resulted from demonic manifestation. In Final Events, he says that the metal was a "manifestation" brought upon by a Parsons/Crowley-like Babylon Working somehow using para-physical technologies. This then opened a portal, and the strange material from hell surfaced!

    And then in another comment on this blog about Anthony Bragalia’s Roswell interview with Billy Cox, Nick says that perhaps the information that was have uncovered by Mr. Bragalia was "deliberate disinformation" put out in the public domain so that if one day someone came up with any Battelle-WPAFB-Roswell idea, it would further cover the real truth about the metal, (presumably) the truth being one of the three scenarios that Mr. Redfern speculates about above).

    Now, I do not know what scenario that Nick really subscribes to, if any.

    It’s very hard to tell. But all three are absolutely off-the-wall with no real basis in fact as I see it.

    Colby

    By Blogger The Einstein Fellowship, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • CDA:

    Yes, it does indeed mean this is a second- or third-hand story. But it's a myth that this mean a story is necessarily problematic.

    If we stick with Roswell, interesr really kicked off big-time in the late 70s with the research of Friedman and Moore (and to a lesser extent, Stringfield).

    Let's take the Marcel story, as it surfaced in the late 70s. Moore got the data from Friedman. Friedman was told of the story by a media source in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in January 1978.

    So, the telling of the story goes from Marcel, to the stattion manager at the TV station in Baton Rouge, to Friedman, to Moore - who then shares it with Berlitz, and it's finally published.

    Now, regardless of how we interpret the nature of what it was that Marcel recovered from the Foster Ranch, the fact is that for the Marcel story to be printed, it went through a complex chain of people.

    So, in my view and experience, getting a story second- or third-hand is certainly not preferable. But what it means is we have to work harder to get to the original source.

    In the case of Marcel this wasn't too har because Friedman had his name.

    I don't have the name of the Colonel's source, but that hasn't stopped me trying to find it - and there are a couple of families who I have approached and a surviving wife of a third that appear to know something of the Colonel's story.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • Colby

    You have correctly noted in my books, articles, interviews etc I have shared data that I (or others) have uncovered that provides wildly different views on Roswell.

    My view is that I think if we ever get the truth (to where we can prove it) Roswell will be shown to be some sort of dark and dubious military experiment, Body-Snatchers style.

    But, I freely admit that with a case that has multiple theories (UFO, weather balloon, Mogul array, human-experimentation, crash test dummies, atomic mishap, V2 rocket, cryptoterrestrial, etc etc), the responsible thing to do is share/publicize all of the data and see where it leads.

    Despite what some might tell you, no-one in the UFO research arena really knows what happened at Roswell. Rather, they have formed opinions based on the available evidence.

    That's exactly what I have done, and I may be right. Or, I may be dead wrong. I'm willing to admit this. But sadly the will to believe (or the will to want to believe) that aliens crashed at Roswell is so great that many Roswell researchers refuse to accept the case involved anything other than aliens.

    You refer to my Final Events book that suggests the debris was the work of some sort of "demonic alchemy." There's no doubt that there are indeed people in the official world who believe that, which is why I highlighted their views in Final Events.

    However, I was very careful to note very early on in Final Events the following with respect to the beliefs about demonic UFOs:

    Here's the quote from Final Events:

    "...it is important to note that the accounts, beliefs, theories and conclusions that I uncovered are strictly those of the people who have been willing to have them publicized. As the author of this book, I am only the messenger for those who adhere to the message. In view of this, it is perhaps wise and apposite for me to cite the words of Sir Walter Scott: “I cannot tell how the truth may be; I say the tale as ‘twas said to me.”

    So, as the above words show, I'm hardly supportive of the demonic angle for Roswell. Rather, I'm relating tht story of those that DO believe it. And in doing so, I hope it may shed further light on Roswell.

    In other words, I feel that when we are dealing with a case that has so many facets and theories to it and that remains presently unresolved, that discussing all the theories is essential.

    But do I buy all the theories? No, of course not. But what if we ignore them all aside from the UFO angle, and by doing so we are actually ignoring the one angle that solves it.

    The problem is that so many people in Ufology illogically expect people to have 1 view on such events - kind of "us vs. them," "skeptcis vs. believers."

    Well, I'm honest enough to admit that's too simplistic an approach. Something odd happened at Roswell, we don't know what, so let's put all the data out there and see what sticks and what falls to the wayside.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • Colby:

    One other thing, you say: "Nick Redfern seems a bit contradictory to me."

    No, I'm not. Sharing with readers of my blogs or books data from insiders that is contradictory (UFO, demonic, cryptoterrestrial, etc) does not make me contradictory.

    It simply means that Roswell is afoot with numerous theories. And its the theories and data that are contradictory.

    How, if I highlight data from sources that is contradictory, does that specifically make me contradictory? Particularly when, as noted in my Comment above, I freely stated in my Final Events book that the theories and beliefs were those of the interviewees, NOT of me?!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • Nick Redfern is right...

    No one really knows what happened near Roswell in July 1947.

    Something significant? Or something mundane, rather prosaic that turned into a major UFO event because of the machinations of some UFO researchers?

    One baffling facet of the Roswell episode that is bothersome to me is the unenthusiastic aftermath (August/September 1947) by those who said they saw the debris, the bodies, and even the saucer itself.

    Sure, the public and news media went away after the Ramey squelch, but why would the locals, who allegedly experienced such a monumental event, go so quiet, and passive?

    Either the Roswell citizenry was egregiously enervated or something less than what we now think is the Roswell event took place and the incident just faded away as non-events are prone to do.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • Nick:

    You say, in last paragraph of your first response to Colby:
    "Something odd happened at Roswell, we don't know what".

    The only reason "something odd" happened is that certain people, over 30 years later, made it odd, and wanted to keep it odd. Others then followed and continued the game.

    To science at large nothing untoward happened. To ufologists several sorts of different things happened, depending who you believe and what you believe.

    You can go on introducing more ideas and making more complexities out of it if you wish. That is why we get all these discussions. I just cannot understand why introducing more and more way out theories, and endless reports from 3rd or 4th-hand people is EVER going to get us anywhere. And if such people are anonymous, the likelihood is zero.

    We desperately need real hardware, bodies or official documentation - lots of the latter.

    But we aint going to get these, are we? Even nitinol won't solve this.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • "Admittedly, neither I nor the interviewee have the answers to the full story, and by his - the Colonel's - own admission, it was what he was told, rather than being directly involved."


    Since his story is that the spy and his Soviet handler were arrested, a law student with a LexisNexis ID ought to be able to pull up the story and the court case in less than 30 minutes, if there is a story and a case.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • CDA wrote: "To science at large nothing untoward happened. To ufologists several sorts of different things happened, depending who you believe and what you believe."

    I think it would be useful if Roswell could be discussed without "science" or "ufology" intruding.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • I agree wholeheartedly Don.

    A journalistic discussion -- real journalism -- would be one way to approach the topic anew.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • CDA:

    We may indeed not get the hardware, bodies, documents etc. But, again, my view is that we have to put out all the data, in the hope that some of sticks and we can then follow that trail and maybe get something - or indeed maybe we won't.

    But I believe we have to keep looking, and when we uncover new data (regardless of which angle of Roswell it supports) we should higlight it for all to see.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • CDA-

    Of course I was well aware of the Corso book when it first came out. When I read it, I immediately recognized it for the fraud that it was. See my article "The Roswell Liars" to learn more.

    And no, curiously Corso never mentioned the "memory metal" or shape recovery materials. Of course he would not have, as he had no special knowledge of any such things...

    Nick-

    As Nick knows, he and I differ on the 'cause' of Roswell. We can agree to disagree and continue the dialog...this is a good thing.

    But I do wish that Nick would assign a probability to the various theories that Colby points out that Nick has mentioned about Roswell over the years. It is important to report, but how about some analysis? Some concept of how likely each of these theories are to Nick...Based on having actually talked to many of the sources that promote each theory, you must have an 'inner sense' or 'gut feel' of who is telling you the truth?

    As readers know, I value witness testimony- but it must be hugely qualified. We must aggressively vet out those who lie. To not do so only perpetuates delusion and falsehoods.

    AJB
    Anthony Bragalia

    By Blogger Anthony, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • Don

    Well, let's hope someone may do this. I have said it before that solving some of the more puzzling cases may come via means and methods that most of us don't usually think of.

    And I would certainly apply that to aspects of the Roswell story. Trying to get the truth by FOIA'ing the USAF to release its "Roswell Files" (if such exist) probably won't work. But, maybe looking for data on a psy-op that involved a Soviet spy-ring may work.

    After all, can there have been many such spy-rings specifically linked to the Army's FTD at some point in the 1960/62 era? Probably not.

    Maybe even FOIA'ing (or checking available FTD files at the National Archives from that period may reveal something.

    I'm personally convinced that this is probably the only way we stand a chance of solving Roswell - finding something on the case that exists in the files of a tangential project - that the censors may miss the signifance of.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • I agree with Don, Nick and yourself. When I was drawn into this conversation by taking the bait in the last post, that was why I placed so much much emphasis on "non-extraterrestrial" chains of causality.
    Although we can disagree if there is a extraterrestrial component to this, to my mind, it's beside the point. Whether Angleton and Dulles were the puppet masters is to be determined. Kudos to the three of you of bringing common sense back to the table.
    While my interests are elsewhere they do not mean that I am diametrically opposed to the earthbound as a result.
    Great post.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • Tony:

    You make a very valid point about addressing the truthfulness (or not) of sources, and the validity of the data.

    One of the biggest problems that many fail to appreciate, is that it's not impossible some of the insiders revealing these stories have themselves been deliberatey deceived, and then encouraged to unknowingly - or unwittingly - spread such deceit.

    After all, there's no better spreader of disinformation than someone who fully, and earnestly, believes the story they are telling.

    The people I spoke to for Body Snatchers came across as very genuine - and I think when you interview a lot of people, as I have done, you do become a good judge of character.

    I don't think they were deceiving me (but I could of course be wrong). But could they themselves have been deceived? Certainly.

    That's why the issue of how accurate the testimony of insiders is, is such a controversial issue.

    When those telling the stories may themselves have been deceived, we start getting into really complex areas that take a hell of a lot of unravelling.

    The people I interviewed fo Final Events about the "demonic" angle of Roswell, clearly believed what they were saying. But, by their own admission, they had not seen the debris. Even they were not supposedly cleared to access it. So, they incorporated their ideas about Roswell into their already-existing Fundamentalist Christian belief systems.

    So, they weren't lying, in my opinion. Rather, they were offering a view based upon their belief. That doesn't mean they were speaking the truth about the Roswell debris, however.

    It's things like this that make it tremendously difficult to know (A) who is speaking the truth; and (B) whether "their truth" is actually "THE truth"!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • The arrest of an alleged spy (civilian? military?) and his handler (American? Soviet?) implies a public record. A Soviet citizen in that position in the early 60s, if he was a diplomat, would be expelled (unless, I assume, there was some way to turn that information to our agency's benefit). An American would likely go to trial.

    We can establish a reality-baseline by studying such situations between, say, 1957-1967.

    It is the same with Roswell 1947. How did civilians, the army, sheriffs and police, the news media act when they were brought together by events, say, from 1937-1949. And also how they interacted in the flying disc story related recoveries of weather balloons and their kites immediately before, during, and immediately after Roswell.

    That information becomes the reality-baseline. It is an approximation of what was 'normal' then and there.

    Unlike "science" which we are told finds nothing "untoward" about Roswell, it appears to me that near everything about it is abnormal from Brazel to Ramey.

    Regarding the Colonel's story, I wonder why they wanted to prove their suspect was a spy. Would 'proof' be that which a judge would admit as evidence, or simply proof of their suspicions? Since the pair was arrested, I'd guess trial evidence was likely.

    I don't know how they expected to get feedback from the KGB. If they had such a channel, then the nitinol would have been more than sufficient with no need for an ET cover. In fact, rather than snag a project that was just at that time (1962) making the discoveries about NiTi, almost anything the KGB would recognize as highly classified would do...maybe not even that important. It depends on the feedback conduit.

    I think a fair amount of counter intelligence work attempts to burn the opponents time, money, and energy with tangents, digressions, and misdirection. If a spy is discovered, arresting him might not be at the top of CI's todo list.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • titanium wasnt discovered until 1948 or so. i seen ads in old national geographics of that time extolling
    it's wonders as a miracle metal. but...almost all titanium comes from
    the ussr as it was called in those days. i also remember reading about memory metal in old edmund scientific catalogs of the late 1960's. anyone could purchase it for fun time experiments!
    i have hours of L3 (low light level) video of the night sky in conjunction with a fireball and bolide study i am doing. i sure wish i could meet folks who would be willing to review the data for any, shall we say, unidentified flying objects. i have lots of moon videos also that should be reviewed for "interesting" phenomena.

    By OpenID quantumskunk, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • To CDA, Gilles-

    Have you asked yourselves a basic question: How is it that so many elderly in the 1980s spoke of such a thing as "memory metal" from the 1940s in the first place? What a strange thing that so many would speak so early of such a thing to begin with! Even in the 1980s, the researchers who spoke to these memory metal witnesses had never heard of Nitinol...The very fact that such a bizarre thing as shape-recovery metal was ever brought up by Roswell witnesses astounds!

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony, at Thursday, January 20, 2011  

  • To AJB:
    You say that the "researchers who spoke to memory metal witnesses in the 1980s had never heard of nitinol."

    Are you saying someone like Stan Friedman had never heard of nitinol?

    It may have been Marcel sr. who first made the claim that the stuff he handled was like 'memory metal' (except he didn't use that term). If Friedman then absorbed this fact and encouraged, or maybe coached, other witnesses then of course they too would have spoken of the so-called 'memory metal', again without using this term. It is the old story of suggestibility again.

    Sometime when Randle & Schmitt were interviewing witnesses, one of them (maybe Bill Brazel) used the term 'fiber optic cable' to describe some of the material he found. Sounds compelling, doesn't it? However, I distinctly remember Bill Moore countering soon afterwards that the witness only used this term because Moore had suggested these very words to him during his early interviews with the same witness! The term had been 'planted' in the witness' mind.

    This is the real curse of the interview process and renders it highly suspect.

    Likewise Marcel jr, in a letter in 1981, spoke of handling some material that was out of this world. "This craft was not conventional in any sense of the word, in that the remnants were most likely that what was then known as a flying saucer that apparently had been stressed beyond its designed capabilities".

    And how had he, aged 11 at the time, managed to come to this remarkable conclusion from the odd fragments brought home that night 34 years ago?

    Answer: someone had recently put the idea into his head, that's how.

    Marcel could not even spell I-beam (calling it 'eye-beam'). Someone put that one into his head also.

    Now you see why these interviews decades after the event are fraught with difficulty.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • CDA-

    Your remark, "Now you see why these interviews are fraught with difficulty" is funny. Not only have I personally conducted such Roswell-related interviews, but, as some know, "interviewing" people is something that I conduct on a daily basis given the nature of my consulting practice.

    To the point: Do some "interviewing" yourself CDA. Go into the real world. Ask 5 any random five people over the age of 70 what "Nitinol" is. Do as I have actually done. You will find that none can define it or have ever even heard of such a thing! In 2011! Try it. I guarantee you will obtain the same results.

    Now do something else: ask five random people in their 20s through 40s to tell you what Nitinol is. You will then know what I am talking about.

    As far as "influencing" testimony to guide witnesses to mention something like "memory metal"- you must be joking! CDA, I have identified roughly one dozen witnesses who very independently mentioned this material many decades ago. Are you saying that they all were influenced by Stan?

    You really do not know from whence you speak on this whatsoever CDA. The very simple truth is this: Tom Carey and Don Schmitt never heard of Nitinol when they conducted their interviews. I can assure you of this because I contributed to their book Witness to Roswell and I asked them that very question. Now as far as Kevin Randle -though I dialog with him regulary- I have never asked him that question. But I know that Kevin did not "lead" such witnesses to "ooax" them in some way to "mention" the memory metal. It is insulting for you to insinuate such! KR would be offended, CDA, and you know that.

    I do not know Stan Friedman as well. But he is not the only source for witnesses about memory metal- not by a long shot. And why on earth, CDA, would Stan "dream up" such a thing to instill in other witness' minds. Ask SF yourself on this. I challenge you.

    And really CDA, how dare you say that these many people do not have a mind of their own! What gives you the idea and the right to say that they are so gullible and so susceptible that they would make up memory metal stories? You- who has likely never yourself ever interviewed such a witness- has the unmitigated gall to say that such witnesses to the metal were so small minded that they could not think for themselves!

    And you -and other rabid skeptics- are simply unable to address the basic dilemma:

    How is it that over a dozen old people decades ago would describe what we know today as examples of very advanced Shape Memory Alloy? It is a very fundamental question that has only one answer: They really saw such a thing back then!

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • AJB

    These same people will also probably tell you they saw an ET craft and even ET bodies as well. This despite there being no such things known to science.

    What about the 'fiber optic' cable? Again, unheard of in '47 but known decades later.

    A craft "stressed beyond its designed capabilities", from examining some fragments. Sure.

    Were your witnesses virgin witnesses? i.e. were you the first to interview them? If not, then yes, their responses and 'memories' have been shaped by what they have read, heard of, listened to, seen on TV, etc. over the intervening years, as Gilles would agree.

    I repeat: who are these dozen elderly people, and were they first-hand or not? Who else had interviewed them before you and what exposure to the Roswell myth did they have? Did any actually use the word 'Nitinol' or the term 'memory metal'?

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • I am unclear, CDA. Do you maintain that Stan Freidman in some way "coached" Jesse Marcel Sr. to speak of advanced Shape Memory Alloy being found? Or do you agree that Jesse himself originated this idea?

    Do you believe that Jesse "made up" this unusual detail? Why? And what was his influence by media, etc. to have ever dreamed this up?

    Or, do you believe that Jesse really did see memory metal in the 1940s, before it was invented?

    And I am especially unclear: Do you believe that the fine detail about memory metal that Jesse had related to Stan was then somehow "picked up" by so many elderly witnesses- and that they either lied or were deceived to substantiate Jesse's story? Or were they just "ignorant" people -who have no mind of there own- who willingly made up such stories to please us?

    Do you realize just how ridiculous (and cruel) this sounds?

    By the 1980s and '90s, many of these witnesses to memory metal were separated by many decades and great distance. To you, they all agreed to conspire with one another to on some level to "agree with Jesse" and perpetuate this strange lie-meme?

    My God, CDA, such a thing would be a conspiracy greater than the coverup of the ET crash itself!

    And to your important point of me detailing all of the reported witnesses to the memory metal: It is a long analysis that rightly deserves its own article- and is being prepared for future publication.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Greetings,

    Well dear Tony, it is realy difficult to reply to your question: I have not a time machine to go back in 1978!

    At least two things are like "spring water" for me, or the red flags in Roswell saga:

    a) The quotes in the post 1978 books, interviews, etc, aren't the "polaroid" of the 1947 stimuli. It is not a collect of virgin tales. There comes from a complex interaction which is forged, constructed, and such quotes aren't coming from a "memory screen of 1947 stimuli", totaly nude of sociopsychological variables and interactions. Absolutly not: it is not how memory works, or testimony works.

    The legacy and testimonies are affected by the exchanges with the investigators, books, TV shows, affected with what investigators whished to heard and rewarded intentionnaly or not.
    Without offense, it is well known that the collect of testimonies requieres a particular methodology in order to not affect the witnesses and/or to control their cultural ambiance, previous knowledge, readings, pre-informations about what they are questionned, and many more. It is drasticaly lacking in Roswell investigations imho and one the crucial problem.

    Without offense too, I dont think the Roswell investigators have such a formation to avoid several well known bias in testimony's collect (as well studied in Criminology or cognitive sciences), as I dont think they were really interested to control such variables. That's one "my" problem in Roswell saga.

    The second main point is the following:

    b) The debris testimoned, globaly, analyticaly and dimensionaly are presenting to much "matching" with radar targets + balloons to be simple coincidences. I dont see any "intruders" (like a "spheroid glass", a "motor", a "strange fluid" or dunno what it CANT match with radar targets + balloons).
    Yes, it is question of sticks, laminated foils, sort of rubber, tape (the mundane DNA of ML307 witnesses cant have invented by a new coincidence), etc. ie Radar targets + balloons materials.

    From these mundane stimuli and relative properties they have in fine, a complex interaction and sociopsychological processes make that we are now in "memory form metal", "optic fibers", etc. in the myth; but as the result of this retrospective falsification on the (prosaic) materials.

    Probabilisticaly, (or I'm a little too much pragmatic and not open mind?), I see in Roswell saga one of the best retrospective falsification of all times: resulting of a modern myth.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • AJB:

    Tell me Tony, re my being 'cruel' to these witnesses: If one of them were to tell you words to the effect "There's no doubt about it, what I saw were beings from another world", and I said to you "Their testimony is false", would you insist I was being 'cruel' to them?

    My point is that if you, Tony, were to interview these people and they told you they saw beings from another world, you would, most probably, accept it as true. You would accept it as true because you are convinced Roswell was an ET event. I am not saying you would accept each and every such witness pronouncement as the literal truth, but you would add each to your basket of Roswell-was-ET supporting evidence.

    If I was interviewing such persons, and got a reply as above, my immediate response would be: "Sorry, but there are no such things as ETs; how and why are you so certain that what you saw was ET?"

    Is this 'cruel' in your eyes? It is part of a thing called "cross-examination" in court cases. That is how we get at the truth, hopefully.

    The same can apply to claims of seeing supposed Nitinol in 1947 (unless there was some real Nitinol in New Mexico at the time).

    Your other queries I shall deal with in due course.

    This all began with Nick Redfern and his Nitinol spy story. See how we digress, as always.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • CDA:

    Re the ongoing questions re who said what about Nitinol and when it first entered Roswell discussion: I may be wrong (and if I am doubtless someone reading this will correct me), but although the memory-metal aspect of Roswell in general has been mentioned in countless books, magazines and TV shows etc, I'm not aware of a specific Roswell-Nitinol connection being made before my Body Snatchers book.

    Now, as before, that doesn't mean the Colonel's story is valid - it may well have been disinfo, I can't deny that.

    But, what I find most intriguing is that he didn't tell a story where "memory-metal" was used to smoke out a Soviet spy in a bogus crashed UFO story context, but he specifically referred to Nitinol.

    And, that half a decaded after Body Snatchers was published, Nitinol has become a factor in the Roswell/crashed UFO saga.

    So, for me at least, this goes back to what I said before: for the Colonel to make a specific reference to Nitinol is significant, but, I'm open-minded on whether he was telling the truth about the Roswell-Nitinol angle being linked to a spy op, or if his story was intended to steer away from the idea that the development of Nitinol really was linked to a crashed UFO.

    But, I do believe he knew *something* about a Roswell/Nitinol link.

    I just find it too coincidental that he should mention Nitinol 8 years ago, and now, today, we are seeing intriguing UFO-Nitinol connections being made.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Gilles-

    All you said...or they could have simply been telling the truth.

    Of course for you to accept even one of their testimonies -even one-would require you to acknowledge that there was memory metal on this earth before man had invented it.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Are you a spokesperson for Science? If you are, I have a question for you.

    I don't get the physics that produced the debris field.

    Can you explain it?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Don:

    To whom are you addressing your kind of smart-assy question?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • It is not a smartassy question. It is asked in a smartassy way because asking in a non-smartassy way never has gotten a response.

    I don't get the physics of the debris field. Some here wield "science" like a weapon.

    I am asking them to employ it on the problem of the debris field (which, for the sake of the topic, was mostly made up of "memory metal")

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Don:

    I feel your frustration.

    But neither Redfern nor Bragalia can pretend to be scientists, even if they employ, or try to, the scientific method in their probes of the Roswell mess.

    The debris field question takes us far afield -- no pun -- from the question of exotic metals that Battelle and other researcher organizations dealt with, after the Roswell event.

    Questions should be asked about the green or blue glass appearance of the "sandy soil" on the so-called debris field, noted by LaPaz and others.

    Then there's the memory metal and newly discussed glass-metal that
    have popped up (again) relating to Roswell.

    I don't know where memory metal takes us as far as the UFO phenomenon goes, generically, but it is intriguing if one thinks that Roswell was an actual ET event rather than a confluence of mis-remembered incidents, as Gilles Fernandez, CDA, and I (to some extent) believe.

    Keep asking the questions, and maybe someone will provide an answer.

    Sidestepping queries that pertain and are meaningful is symptomatic of the UFO crowd.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Tony wrotes : "Of course for you to accept even one of their testimonies -even one-would require you to acknowledge that there was memory metal on this earth before man had invented it."

    Hum no, I think I bad explained my "point of view" concerning retrospective falsification. Just an analogy maybe to make it clearer:

    Imagine a witness or witnesses not aware about "jacket kite", metal colored and this jacket lokking like something he knew in color, thickness, and so one : This material loocking for him like a tinfoil (cigaret paper).

    "Jacket kite" are not the same as tinfoil if you (Tony) have already faced a "jacket kite".

    The witness will say, for example, it looked like tinfoil, but when it is crumpled, it tended to recover its original shape (yep, jacket kite have such property in comarison to tinfoil.

    Does this mean that the witness was in front of a shape memory metal? Or is describing memory metal foil?

    I think, more or less, it is the same concerning the memory form material in Roswell Saga. Dunno if clearer?

    Best Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "But neither Redfern nor Bragalia can pretend to be scientists, even if they employ, or try to, the scientific method in their probes of the Roswell mess."

    Neither Nick nor Tony are claiming the imprimatur of Science for their opinion, but the skeptics do. Their one argument is that nothing unusual, abnormal happened. All is explainable as usual and normal by Science: "To science at large nothing untoward happened."
    Therefore, any claim to the abnormal or unusual is de facto "false"'.

    "The debris field question takes us far afield..."

    No it doesn't. The debris field is made up of a lot of the claimed memory metal. The debris field, as described in 1947 and later, has never to my knowledge been explained by Science.

    If the Science fanboys can't explain the debris field, then there is no reason to attend to their view that nothing unusual or abnormal happened.

    However, on the chance that there might actually be a mundane explanation for the debris field, I ask the question. If there isn't any, then perhaps the deposit of the field might be influenced by the nature of the materials.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • There's another issue to this story that is worth commenting on, as it relates to the memory metal that isn't reliant on anything particularly revolutionary being involved.

    Check out the following links at YouTube from "UFO Hunters" where the team tries to determine what products most resemble the memory metal that Jesse Marcel Jr heard about from his father.

    For the first link, start at approx the 3 minute 43 seconds time:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWN6kMlII0

    And for the second link, watch it all from the beginning. But in particular take a look at Marcel Jr.s response from the very start of link 2.

    Marcel is clearly very impressed with the material he is given by the team, and says it's very much like what his dad described to him.

    But...the material is just acetate.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sZUW6_LDXY


    Now, I'm not saying what Marcel Sr found was acetate, of course. But that Marcel Jr does look impressed by the acetate, suggests to me we don't have to necessarily go down the path that the debris was truly exotic and unknown, when we have a terrestrial substance that clearly mimics what he and his father talked about, and that impresses someone who is an absolutely integral part of the Roswell story from the beginning.

    The other guy in the UFO Hunters shoot, the old guy who also handled the material back in 47, is also suitably impressed by the acetate as he holds it etc, and confirms it's very much like what he saw.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Oh, I see, Don...

    You're "attacking" the skeptics.

    I have to disagree with you about the debris field.

    That just confuses or messes up the discussion.

    It's the debris being discussed here, not the debris venue.

    This is where UFO discussions go astray, someone (you?) takes a tangential turn that is somewhat connected to the discussion, but not intrinsic to it.

    The debris field in one thing; the debris, itself, is another.

    Just sayin'

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "This is where UFO discussions go astray, someone (you?) takes a tangential turn that is somewhat connected to the discussion, but not intrinsic to it."

    And this is where UFO discussants go to point-counterpointing each other to no conclusion except enervation.

    I mean the skeptics here, who have nothing to say and without whom little point-counterpointing would occur.

    Gilles will never apply his generic sociopsycho stuff to the specific case at hand, and CDA will never accept anything that Science hasn't given its imprimatur.

    What is "intrinsic" about those? Seriously.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Don:

    We (I) always give Gilles and CDA a pass here.

    This makes Anthony uncomfortable, and you note our "letting them slide" bias.

    But as a fellow skeptic, yes, and an admirer of Gilles credentials along with CDA's persistently sensible (and often erudite)skepticsm, you can understand why I (or we) rarely) condemn their seemingly tangential asides; I accent seemingly.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • "Gilles will never apply his generic sociopsycho stuff to the specific case at hand"

    Well, I devoted 2 years to write an humble "skeptic" french book about Roswell and the 1947 wave.

    http://www.amazon.fr/Roswell-Rencontre-du-Premier-Mythe/dp/2810618623/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1

    Maybe I will find a person with better english I have to translate it^^ I hope to write a second one, because I learn many things with our past monthes exchanges.
    TY for that, it is very difficult to exchange between "ETH proponents" and "skeptics" in France.

    I find Nick Redfern's link particulary illustrating what I mean previously.

    I'm convinced radar-targets laminated jacket, strings, sticks, tape with symbols, etc. were legitimaly a good candidat for Flying disks or Saucers for 1947 Roswell protagonists if you have "never" faced it and when you contextualize the real story, the wave and "take the place" of such CONTEMPORAN protagonists (+ several others things - publicity, rush, rewards, "I will be the first").

    I think Roswell real story is victim of a change of the 1947 terms "FS or FD", a sort of linguistic ethnocentrism bias, made from 1978 on this Roswell real event (prosaic), due to the step by step changes of such terms cause Keyhoe, Scully, etc, jumped on the 1947 wave to give to such terms the direct association to extraterrestrial. It wasn't the same in 1947.

    At least, this is my thesis.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Gilles wrote: [quoting me] ""Gilles will never apply his generic sociopsycho stuff to the specific case at hand""

    "Well, I devoted 2 years to write an humble "skeptic" french book about Roswell and the 1947 wave."

    That's nice. What Roswell witenesses did you interview?


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Why is Don so concerned about the debris field?

    Presumably he means the Foster ranch. But remember that there are, or were, 3 other crash sites associated with Roswell.

    So what is so important about the stuff on the Foster ranch? We do not know how much of it was recovered, how much was not recovered, we can never know the answers to these. The contemporary press accounts point to nothing unusual; it is only 32 years later that we start to get stories of unusual debris, and as further time goes by we get more & more exotic metals, fiber optics, maybe memory metal, etc. being present.

    So what does Don want? The debris field contained nothing otherworldly, nothing at all. If he thinks otherwise, where is the official documentation to indicate this? Did any scientific research team ever trek out there and scoop up this remarkable stuff? Or did the USAF impose such a total and complete security there as to bar them (and at the same time ensure they and they alone gathered up every tiny fragment of the debris themselves)?

    Tony Bragalia's nitinol theory simply has no relevance to it. It is, as RR says, a 'tangential issue'.

    Gilles has given an adequate answer to the likely origins of the legend of the 'memory metal'. I have nothing to add to this.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • CDA wrote: "Why is Don so concerned about the debris field?"

    "So what is so important about the stuff on the Foster ranch?"

    "So what does Don want? The debris field contained nothing otherworldly, nothing at all. If he thinks otherwise, where is the official documentation to indicate this? Did any scientific research team ever trek out there and scoop up this remarkable stuff? Or did the USAF impose such a total and complete security there as to bar them (and at the same time ensure they and they alone gathered up every tiny fragment of the debris themselves)?"

    CDA, I've posted several times about the debris field (and the one I mean is the one in the 1947 news stories)

    It is not what the debris field contained but the description of the field of debris itself.

    How do any number of balloons and kites deposit themselves in a circumscribed area (several hundred feet wide and up to a mile in length) in tiny pieces of foil, sticks and strips of rubber?

    I don't get the physics of that.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Don Wrote : "That's nice. What Roswell witenesses did you interview?"

    Loling : the traditional Roswell ETH proponent rethoric and argument when.

    Seriously, you dont see your comment stupid here? I see it stupid for my part.

    I do with the materials I have. I have no power to resurrect Jesse Marcel, for example. Shame on me...

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Dammit Don...

    The Roswell witnesses have been the bane of the whole Roswell episode.

    They've lied, mis-remembered, confabulated, and committed all the sins that human beings commit when interviewed.

    Anthong Bragalia and I go round and round about this.

    But he tempers his witness interviews and those with Battelle staffers for instance, by substantiating material(s).

    Nick Redfern holds his interviews to high standards by trying to get several sources, as journalists are supposed to do, before applying testimony to paper (or the computer).

    The key to Roswell lies in actual materials -- some of the alleged debris, or (never produced) photos.

    Today's UFO researchers, as Gilles points out, can't have access to dead people, so one has to use source material that bypasses the deficient and non-reliable witness testimony that Friedman, Randle, Schmitt, Moore, et al. gathered and often corrupted by their own unconscious biases and leading questions.

    So, screw witness testimony, then and now.

    Let's concentrate on getting something we can hold in our hands (memory metal from the event?) or government files that have the patina of reliability.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Don wrote : "How do any number of balloons and kites deposit themselves in a circumscribed area (several hundred feet wide and up to a mile in length) in tiny pieces of foil, sticks and strips of rubber?"

    Well, you are basing your measures on JOURNALISTIC lines or testimony. Do you think human is an accurated measure instrument? Realy? Do you think a journalist (1947 Brael interview) are a fidel translator of what Brazel have in mind?

    I remember CDA already pointed it.

    If I find three pieces at a hundred-meter interval from each other, it makes you a awesome area, but the 3 pieces are just scattered...

    My legacy and your (journalistic) transcription does not indicate and not contain density, or scientific measures... and calculations in this sense are... futile.
    But you are making calculations however.

    That's ufology.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "They've lied, mis-remembered, confabulated, and committed all the sins that human beings commit when interviewed."

    Which ones? When? About what? How do you know?

    It is a nice and tidy box where you can put all of the statements you dislike.

    When I ask for the specifics, I find there are none, just the generic "false memory" schtick.

    You have a real analysis of someone? Marcel Sr? Walter Haut? Bring it out into the light of day and let's see what's what.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Nick:

    Back to your original post. I accept that you are giving a truthful rendition of the DIA Colonel’s story. Here’s my take on the significance of it.

    I don’t see anything internally inconsistent in his story that would invalidate it. I also don’t see anything externally inconsistent in his story that would invalidate it. What I mean by that is that he is describing a classic counterintelligence operation which has been used other places and other times in the history of spycraft. At least he’s not making up the basic structure of the narrative. I suspect the DIA Colonel would not have been responsible himself for running this kind of operation, since “dirty tricks” are the responsibility of the counterintelligence function—in this case, probably the AFOSI (since the leak would have been inside the USAF). Don asked …”I wonder why they wanted to prove their suspect was a spy”. That doesn’t seem very mysterious to me; the answer is, to get rid of the leak. That’s what the AFOSI does. I can’t find any particular reason to question the veracity of the Colonel’s testimony.

    But a number of elements have to be in place for this kind of counterintelligence operation to work. For one thing, it is necessary to be able to intercept the communications of the spy, somewhere along the line. Otherwise, it would be impossible to know whether the bogus information planted in the suspected leak had arrived. To answer Don’s other quandry, “I don't know how they expected to get feedback from the KGB”.

    By Blogger Larry, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Part 2.

    I would guess that someone like the National Security Agency was probably intercepting messages on their way to the KGB. That’s their job. The Colonel said they suspected an agent in the D.C. area was receiving classified information from someone in or near the FTD; it seems to me they couldn’t know that in the first place without some sort of intercepted information.

    Given the hypothesis that his testimony is truthful, what information can we draw from it?

    Well, he did not claim anywhere in your narrative to know for sure that the Roswell event was a crashed UFO. He also did not claim anywhere in your narrative to know for sure that the Roswell event was NOT a crashed UFO. My guess would be that he doesn’t know for sure one way or the other, just like the rest of us.

    Second, in sting operations like this, the element of the story that is being seeded cannot actually disclose classified information because it would be illegal. From this consideration I would infer that Nitinol was NOT actually linked in any significant way to a crashed UFO otherwise the AFOSI would have been revealing classified information to the KGB and the DIA Colonel would have been revealing classified information to you.

    By Blogger Larry, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Part 3.

    Third, the element of the story that is being seeded has to be something that both the spy and the foreign intelligence agency is interested in and would not dismiss as false, out of hand. In other words, it has to be plausible to the target audience. From this, I would infer that the AFOSI concluded (correctly, apparently) that the KGB would find it plausible that Nitinol may have been reverse engineered from a crashed UFO. Again, this may not have required guesswork on the part of AFOSI. If, as I suspect, communications to and from the KGB handler in D.C. were being intercepted, the AFOSI would have known the list of topics of interest to the KGB before they concocted their story.

    So, bottom line summary: 1) the Colonel himself didn’t necessarily know for a fact whether the FTD did or did not have material recovered from a crashed UFO, 2) if the FTD did have such material, Nitinol was not it, and 3) the KGB was secretly interested in this topic in 1962.

    By Blogger Larry, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Don:

    I'm not going to rehash the mental fallibilities of human beings, from the literature, that I've put online here a while back.

    Again, the contradictions of the Roswellians have been grist for a lot of bloggers and UFO aficionados, as you know from your sojourns at Randle's blog (among others).

    When I posted The Great Pan is Dead piece, I hoped that the material therein, from eminent scholars, would caution readers here about accepting witness testimony, from anyone, anytime, anywhere.

    Being ill-read is a problem with most UFO mavens -- something that I've cursed for a long time.

    The UFO crowd is not an intellectual lot, that's for sure.

    So, debating with such a deficient group is problematical, since one is always trying to impose what is known upon those who don't know.

    Human beings are fallible when it comes to providing witness testimony...you know that as well as I do.

    But you keep wanting to beat that dead horse, and make it part of a discussion which I was hoping would stick with the memory metal element of Roswell, as Tony Bragalia and Nick Redfern present it.

    To go off-track is irritaing, to me, and those who wish to confine the discussion to the topic at the top of the posting.

    (I'm, not chastising you or anyone, just venting...I guess.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Interviewing witnesses now (or in 2000 or earlier) is pointless for the reasons RR has pointed out. They would be elderly (yes memories DO deteriorate with age and it is not 'cruel' to say so) and more important, they would be contaminated by previous interviewers dating back to 1978. We all know who these interviewers were. They would also be contaminated by all that has gone under the bridge since 1978, again I do not need to restate this.

    So as for interviewing witnesses, ANY witnesses (2nd-hand, 3rd-hand, etc) now, forget it. It would be futile.

    I am still puzzled by this debris field. Gilles has given a good enough answer to this, as have I some time ago. You need not suppose the whole area was cluttered by debris. In fact we can assume the great majority was not. It was sparsely laid out, so journalistic phrases like 200 yards square, or half a mile long mean very little.

    If you have 4 pieces of debris at the four corners of a square, and the square has a side of 200 yards, the press will very likely claim the debris was spread (literally) over 40,000 square yards, i.e. nearly 8 acres. But this would be a totally false impression. 99+ per cent of the area is empty!

    As I also said, things like length or area measurements given by newspapers are highly suspect when the debris is scattered.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "I'm not going to rehash the mental fallibilities of human beings, from the literature, that I've put online here a while back."

    We all know about the fallibilities of memory.

    You must demonstrate a statement is false before you can conjure up some hypothesis to explain why it is so.

    Your personal incredulity is not evidence enough.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "Human beings are fallible when it comes to providing witness testimony...you know that as well as I do.

    But you keep wanting to beat that dead horse, and make it part of a discussion..."

    I didn't bring up the subject of memory. Some others did. I ask for the specifics, but there never are any offered.

    I mean if as you write "Human beings are fallible when it comes to providing witness testimony", then it is your scholarly task to demonstrate the falseness of their memory if you claim it is false.

    You think witness A has a false memory. Why? Don't tell me because human memory is fallible. You tell me specifically why that specific recollection of that specific person is false.

    In other words: prove your assertion.

    Apparently on this blog appeals to authority are what count-- what book you got some idea from. Even one's own books.

    But that's ufology.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • CDA wrote "yes memories DO deteriorate with age "

    Do tell. But now take the specific person and the specific recollection and demonstrate the deterioration.

    "and more important, they would be contaminated by previous interviewers "

    See above

    ***

    CDA What conditions would tear balloons and their targets into small strips and pieces? Why would these bits and pieces fall in a defined space?

    Where would this -- I'll call it disintegration, the failure of structural integrity-- have taken place? It would have to have been close to the ground, I think. Difficult to imagine it occuring at high altitude and still coming down in a defined space rather than the bits floating away on the wind.

    What sort of near-ground event would cause the debris field?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • If Nick and Tony associate nitinol with the foil of the Brazel debris field, then it is worth asking whether nintinol would react similarly.

    The question might be put this way: what would cause a wafer of nitinol foil to shred like Brazel's debris foil?

    (and if you know of balloon/kite recoveries shredded like the Brazel one, I hope you'll provide a citation).

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Don:

    This goes to the heart of my problem with your queries.

    The generality that the human mind is fallible is known and documented by psychologists, neurologists, historians, fiction writers, and any number of other professionals who deal with the mind of man.

    To think or state that this is questionable is foolish in the extreme.

    Except for idiot savants perhaps, every person will recollect events, whether a hour ago, a day ago, a month ago, a year ago, or 40years ago, or 60 years ago, incorrectly.

    It's the nature of memory and the workings of the mind.

    To ask anyone here to find what exactly is incorrect with a Roswell witness's recollection of events is a debating canard.

    The generality, the premise of mental fallibility stands on the merit of the finds of those cited above.

    If you think that the Roswell witnesses have remembered events just as they occurred, or that they didn't confabulate is sheer stupidity, and I know you are not a stupid man.

    Why persist in the nonsense you keep trying to lead this discussion into?

    Roswell witnesses cannot and have not recalled, either in 1978 or today, what actually happened in Roswell in 1947.

    It's a psychological and a neurological fact.

    I for one am not going off on a wild goose chase to try and make points that are irrelevant to the discussion here, about memory metal.

    The same applies to your attempt to take us across the debris field again...for what purpose?

    If you are just confused, then forgive me for being so harsh.

    But if your goal is to divert us from a meaningful attempt to get at the memory metal "evidence" that Tony Bragalia and Nick Redfern have dug up, or gotten some evidence for, then shame on you.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • "To think or state that this is questionable is foolish in the extreme."

    I haven't questioned it. I am referring to the polemical tactic of using it to dismiss any recollection the one finds disagreable.

    "The same applies to your attempt to take us across the debris field again...for what purpose?"

    Because Nick and Tony associate nitinol with the foil from the Brazel debris field.

    They've taken witness testimony, for example, in their evidence. I offer the earliest original unimplanted on that very day reports about the material by someone who actually saw the field.

    Those reports describe the material as having been shredded very likely close to the ground. If nitinol bears a relationship to the debris foil, then it might have this characteristic under certain physical circumstances. If not, then maybe there's no connection.

    "Why persist in the nonsense you keep trying to lead this discussion into?"

    I ask those who want to discredit a statement with the memory polemic to be specific and demonstrate the faleseness they refer to.

    To those who say nothing unusual happened re Roswell, I ask them to explain the debris field.

    "But if your goal is to divert us from a meaningful attempt to get at the memory metal "evidence" that Tony Bragalia and Nick Redfern have dug up, or gotten some evidence for, then shame on you."

    Yeah. That's my motive, to divert you all.

    Thanks.

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Don:

    The debris field is a side-bar, a red-herring.

    As CDA points out, there are three possible debris fields in the Roswell saga (as Gilles calls it).

    No one knows for sure if something happened at Corona or on the Foster Ranch or somewhere in between.

    Or if something significant happened at all.

    The witnesses haven't led us to a solution.

    Nor have the researchers of note.

    Bragalia and Redfern have some circumstantial evidence that a kind of exotic metal was studied by Battelle, maybe Sandia, and at Berkeley...maybe other place too, all ostensibly from Roswell, or from the alleged Roswell "crash."

    Let's conjecture that balloon debris was found, also -- maybe Mogul, maybe not.

    Is it possible that some balloon debris was mixed up, purposefully or inadvertently within the context of something else having had an accident near Roswell?

    And that's part of the confusion or part of the mythos.

    But let's not stray from the memory metal "evidence" as such.

    A diversion by dragging in tangential Roswell witness testimony or conjectural detritus is what we were trying to avoid with the postings about memory metal or nitinol.

    Otherwise we end up here, like Randle's blog, a lot of hot air, and not any of it having to do with balloons or the Roswell event itself.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "As CDA points out, there are three possible debris fields in the Roswell saga (as Gilles calls it)."

    And which debris field is Tony referring to when he wrote (to "Gilles and CDA": "Even in the 1980s, the researchers who spoke to these memory metal witnesses had never heard of Nitinol."

    And which field and witnesses are CDA and Gilles referring to when they replied?

    Now, I ask some questions about the debris and CDA points to all the other fields that some say exist. Ok. I get it.

    And that field the newspapers referred to? Well, as CDA explains, you can't believe what you read.

    So, the witnesses are out. False memory. And the only documentation, the newspapers are out, because y'know...they're newspapers.

    So, what is left?

    Well, there's all the other debris fields nobody has ever seen, and there's the "Colonel", and some stuff about Batelle whose research into NiTi is tied to an event that only occurred in the false memories of witnesses and the lousy editorial practice of newspapers.

    I must be misdirecting everyone. Yep. Surely.

    For this, I actually opened a google account?

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, January 21, 2011  

  • Hahahahaha

    I really get your frustration, Don, I really do.

    But you truly have to quit encouraging these fellows with your questions.

    The Roswell thing is a real mess, exacerbated by the ongoing regurgitation of "details" from the raft of books, blogs, and other stuff that is extant.

    No one should care about the Mogul explanation, or the "seen" bodies, or casket request that Dennis brought up, or the Ramey squelch of the incident. Or even the Marcel Jr. recollection.

    But the elusiveness of those who indicate or indicated that they played around with "memory metal" (or even nitinol) from Roswell indicates a nefarious hiding of something exotic from Roswell or a delusional element in the scientific community that doesn't bode well for science itself.

    (For me, the patent for Nitinol in relation to dentistry is offputting and seems so incongruous if nitinol is what the Battelle guys think was recovered from a Roswell crash of an alien spacecraft.)

    That trail takes us nowhere.

    But Anthony Bragalia's contacts with Battelle scientists and workers is so fraught with surreptitious angst that one is inclined to believe, as he does, that there's more here than meets the eye.

    Yet, for me, memory metal, all by itself, doesn't go half-way to explaining what all the hubbub was for a few days in July 1947 at the Foster ranch or in Roswell.

    Mmeory metal doesn't explain the Haut press release or the newspaper headlines, or even the concoctions of the witnesses.

    There's something else.

    And no one has come close to discovering, despite all the words, all the traipsing around the Roswell environs, all the TV shows, books, and blog comments, what really happened or not in Roswell in 1947.

    No one.

    That makes Roswell, for me, a mythos, which itself can be studied for all the elements that have nothing to do with ET but do have a lot to say about human nature and the will to believe things that are full of farfetchery more than anything else.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 22, 2011  

  • Isn't it obvious that if the "geezers" have messed things up, failed to follow leads, didn't ask the right questions, didn't preform due dilegence and fact checking, that the 1947 event has not been exhausted?

    What you call the myth, I call crap, and have no interest in discussing it. To me it is 'political' between sects and factions in ufology (I include skeptics among ufologists).

    So, I'll avoid "mythos" threads from now on (although it is sometimes not easy to tell that they are at first) and continue to read others, if there are any.

    Neither skeptics nor advocates are interested in non-mythos discussions. There may be a clue in that.

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Saturday, January 22, 2011  

  • Don wrote: "I ask those who want to discredit a statement with the memory polemic to be specific and demonstrate the faleseness they refer to."

    I will humblely trie it.

    First Don, you make as if there exist no one scientific study concerning human memory, experimentaly demonstrating that human memory is not like a "polaroid". Same it is concerning human perception, there exist rich fields showing that human is unable to evaluate distance, altitude, trajectory, etc.

    To those scientific facts, I believe we must add the social contaminations and the mecanisms of the interview conduced by Roswell researchers. + the fact that what you read in newspapers (Brazel interview) concerning the area of the field is just "words", ie. a "interpretation" by the journalist, in any case a measure done by an instrument.

    Without ad hominem, to considerate Moore, Friedman or several Roswell investigators as neutral and benevolent interviewers is "naive".

    In essence, Roswell testimonies is a complex mixture with all of these, resulting of "quotes" some (you?) are taken quasi litteraly as if you are facing a faithfull "picture" of the "stimuli" described. But such quotes are in fact the result of a complex cinematic, and not a polaroid of the stimuli which are described. It is how legacies, tales, testimonies work, and mainly in extroardinary tales.

    More important, I modestly "insist" to "my" analogy regarding "kite jacket".

    ML307 envelopes were not made of tin and paper stricto sensu and have not the properties of tin foil like the such we can find in package of cigarettes, even though "it looks like".

    Many materials have a relative memory form property: cloth, plastic, kevlar, some papers, etc.

    Take a look on an "Alox" toy manufactory radar target for example or on such Mogul ML307 radar targets you have pictures in the USAF report.

    Moore in Ziegler, Saler (and himself book) remembers that Edwin J. Istvan noticed that the first radar targets were preproduction prototypes, but that the winds caused the destruction of the first 1944 models, so he had to MODIFY them (to reinforce).

    I think such modified radar targets are the model, used in New Mexico that 1947 summer and I'm convinced cause to have touched recent radar targets that the ML307 jacket have a relative memory form property like "kite jacket".

    Then, when you describe such "unknown" foils, you compare it with what you know (tinfoil ie) and you insist it is not like tinfoil (and that's totaly right!).

    Due to several bias, Roswell researchers consider this real property of the jacket as the proof and evidence of memory metal material, something imho very naïve. It is just a relative property of the "unknown" jacket when you compare it with what you know (tinfoil ie.). PERIOD.

    And the retrospective falsification is on the way and will continue.

    I can do the same "reasonning" concerning the sticks and the string. But I regret, all such materials are matching with Radar targets and Balloons materials, whatever "mythmakers" would say.

    Such prosaic materials are just "contaminated" by the myth processing in my humble opinion. Dunno if clear?

    Best regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Saturday, January 22, 2011  

  • RR :

    "And no one has come close to discovering, despite all the words, all the traipsing around the Roswell environs, all the TV shows, books, and blog comments, what really happened or not in Roswell in 1947."

    To be fair, the USAF has done this in 1995, but I agree they have not explained everything, nor should they be expected to, after 5 decades. The trouble is that dedicated ETHers will nitpick and find holes in any negative book, because they know nobody has ALL the answers. But so-and-so said this. How do you explain what so-and-so said? And on and on it goes. The Ramey sheet of paper shows this, the metal did this.... etc.

    Re the 'memory metal': as a jocular aside, I pose the following:

    Which has the better memory, an ageing witness or the metal?

    Answer this and you will solve the Roswell mystery, for good. (Perhaps!)

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, January 22, 2011  

  • @Nick:

    Reference your comment:

    "Re the ongoing questions re who said what about Nitinol and when it first entered Roswell discussion: I may be wrong (and if I am doubtless someone reading this will correct me), but although the memory-metal aspect of Roswell in general has been mentioned in countless books, magazines and TV shows etc, I'm not aware of a specific Roswell-Nitinol connection being made before my Body Snatchers book."

    There is a reference by an unidentified Australian researcher who apparently made the connection between the Roswell incident, alleged debris collected there, and Nitinol as far back as 1994, based on an opinion from Dr. Andrei Calka (Russian metallurgist) as to the apparent nature of the debris as described in "The Roswell Incident" by Berlitz and Moore.

    Tony knows more about this early research and connection between Roswell and Nitinol by the Australian reseacher as the alleged kind of similar shape memory alloy found at Roswell, and I think first became aware of the Roswell-Battelle-Nitinol connection through this Australian researcher's earlier investigatory efforts. Unfortunately, the original website this data appeared on is no longer online, but can be retrieved, as noted below, via the tinyurl link I've provided below.

    Re: archive.org copy of sunrise.com page referencing Australian researcher's .pdf files about his research connecting the Roswell incident with Nitinol, dating back to 1994. See .pdf page 71 of section 5, "AN AUSTRALIAN RESEARCHER'S PERSPECTIVE":

    http://tinyurl.com/4eogebt

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Saturday, January 22, 2011  

  • @RR:

    "Questions should be asked about the green or blue glass appearance of the "sandy soil" on the so-called debris field, noted by LaPaz and others."

    The area where a "swimming pool blue" or light bluish, glassy-like glaze was found is not the same as the debris field. It was a different area.

    But yes, questions should be asked. I think this is potentially quite significant, but in a way much different than most may think. Its presumed linkage in time and place to the Roswell incident is... intriguing.

    Obscure references to this blue glassy area can be found online for those who wish to probe further. It would be interesting to see what they can come up with.

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Saturday, January 22, 2011  

  • Gilles wrote that Don wrote:

    "I ask those who want to discredit a statement with the memory polemic to be specific and demonstrate the faleseness they refer to."

    Here is a specific case:

    Bill Rickett is credited (by virtue of his testimony) as having been at the debris field, or other crash site, in July 1947. He claims to have written a report on this. He also claims that La Paz, the meteoriticist, went around with him in September 1947 to interview witnesses. (2 months afterwards; why the delay?)

    La Paz wrote a report in Feb 1949 of his attempts to interview witnesses to a spectacular green fireball episode that occurred the night of Jan 30, 1949. The location was around the Roswell area. Moreover he took Rickett with him and mentions his name in the said report; moreover Rickett himself wrote a report on this episode (along with 2 others).

    I have every reason to believe Rickett is confusing his involvement with the Roswell crashed saucer in summer '47 with his involvement with the fireball episode 18 months later. The evidence is unmistakeable. Rickett's memory is false.

    All right, it is possible Rickett was involved in BOTH episodes. But I strongly doubt it. Why didn't he say so, if he was? And why, if he did indeed write about the Roswell crash, cannot the document be found, whereas the one on the fireball episode CAN be found? And La Paz's paper confirms this.

    Answer: Rickett has a confused memory of his true UFO involvement in New Mexico in the late 1940s.
    Robert Todd came to the same conclusion. It was he who supplied me with the documents.

    Now get the ET proponents like Kevin Randle and David Rudiak to accept this. They won't!

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, January 22, 2011  

  • CDA wrote: "Answer: Rickett has a confused memory of his true UFO involvement in New Mexico in the late 1940s."

    Maybe he was lying, rather than confused.

    "Now get the ET proponents like Kevin Randle and David Rudiak to accept this. They won't!"

    Why should they? Why should they accept your opinion without proof? I don't know why you think they should accept your word for it.

    I don't think you understand that you have no proof, just some good questions, which, in lieu of a definitive answer, you choose to make up and believe an answer that makes you feel comforatable. No problem with that. We all make our choices. And Randle and Rudiak, like you, made their choices.

    As for LaPaz, if anyone has even heard a rumor of where his personal papers are, I'd like to know, too.

    As a side note: statements of officers, men, and civilians who are or were counter intelligence should be vetted with extreme care. It is best practice, imo, to accept only what is confirmed by non-CI sources.

    Gilles wrote...a lot of condescending stuff.

    "First Don, you make as if there exist no one scientific study concerning human memory, experimentaly demonstrating that human memory is not like a "polaroid"."

    Do tell.

    Is it the casual anti-americanism of the French that makes you write that way?

    "Dunno if clear?"

    It is clear you did not present any case.

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Saturday, January 22, 2011  

  • One interesting shift in rhetorical strategies has been the skeptics dropping calling witnesses liars and instead adopting the strategies of professional expert witnesses.

    No doubt it occurred to them that a liar by definition would know the truth. Claiming memory impairment avoids that.

    What it did was wreck the legalistic rhetoric of the advocates...witnesses, testimony, affidavit etc.

    And that was a good thing. But it is nothing more -- a rhetoric, strategy, tactic. It is not an evidence-vetting machine.

    Things might have gone differently if there had been a Roswell investigator who was also a trial lawyer.

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Saturday, January 22, 2011  

  • To Don:
    Of course I have no proof. But unlike the ETHers, I DO have documents showing La Paz and Rickett were both involved with the green fireball incident (along with many others in the USAF).

    The ETHers, on the other hand, have absolutely nothing to show for their ideas about Rickett& La Paz, only the jittery memory of Rickett (who said he produced a report on Roswell) and who told Moore & Friedman a slightly different story to that he told Randle & Schmitt.

    I have conceded that perhaps Rickett & La Paz were in BOTH incidents, but if so, why do papers exist for one but not the other? And why is Rickett's testimony about not interviewing witnesses of this momentous unearthly event until Sept. '47 accepted? It is bordering on preposterous. La Paz never worked like that.

    Yes, you can claim one set of documents was all hushed up and the other was not. The standard Roswell excuse.

    What would you accept as 'proof' in such a case?

    By all means, locate LaPaz's official papers if you can. It would be a great eye-opener. It would throw a lot of light (wholly negative in my view) on the Roswell myth.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, January 22, 2011  

  • Don et al.

    We all agree, do we not, that the original Roswell investigators botched their information gathering in a number of ways.

    Even the self-aggrandizing Kevin Randle is back-tracking, saying that because he and his UFO ilk work part-time, using their own monies, they missed some bases.

    Fiedman won't concede anything. He's beyond the pale, old and entrenched in his own "legacy" and UFO "notoriety."

    Jerry Clark has just gotten snide, frustrated by his lack of "fame" in the greater world, outside the UFO community.

    Moore is a nobody nowadays, along with several others whose one-time UFO glory has faded.

    So, we can say with temerity that the UFO geezers screwed up, and missed the boat about Roswell and other UFO events.

    And whether the major UFO events that they've botched can be resurrected with credibility is an iffy proposition, as Redfern and others, including me, think.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 22, 2011  

  • CDA wrote: "What would you accept as 'proof' in such a case?"

    Evidence of where La Paz was at the time Rickett says he was in Roswell. That's why La Paz's personal papers are important. It is too bad that, unlike many academics of his stature, his personal papers were not archived...diaries, correspondence etc.

    I'd begin by identifying La Paz's last verifiable location before Rickett's timeframe and the first known after it. Then attempt to fill in the middle.

    Besides the University, La Paz was a member of several organizations where he spoke, presented papers and such. I'd look to them for information whether they met during the timeframe and whether La Paz attended the meeting. I'd also want to find out if any of his associates at the university had archived personal papers to see if there is a mention of La Paz during the timeframe -- "had the La Paz's over for dinner last night. Afterwards we discussed...").

    Interestingly, La Paz and his family were about 100 miles North of Roswell on July 10, 1947 having a very detailed flying disc sighting. I guess I'd begin with that.

    What was he doing in Clovis? Why were they traveling the Clines Corners? Then continue the trace.



    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Saturday, January 22, 2011  

  • A Bloomberg critic, cited in The New Yorker [1/17/11, Page 20, Look out!], referred to the new Broadway musical, "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark" as "an unfocused hodgepodge of storytelling, myth-making and spectacle that comes up short in every department."

    This is the description of the Roswell event, isn't it?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 22, 2011  

  • Just an aside:

    Don wrote :"Is it the casual anti-americanism of the French that makes you write that way?"

    Waooo: what stupid preconception and prejudgment adding nothing to the topic...

    Just to clarify, if need be: when I wrote "dunno if clear?" it means I dont know if my presentation is clear, given my English level. Nothing to do with this ridiculous charge writted by Don.

    End of the aside.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Correction/update to my comment about the Australian researcher, who was among the first to draw a connection between the alleged metallic foil debris gathered at Roswell and Nitinol:

    The page I cited as a tinyurl link, http://tinyurl.com/4eogebt, goes to a list of .pdf files collected at archive.org, and that were online between 2007 and early 2010.

    At some point these were removed**, which is why I went to archive.org to use the "Wayback Machine" search feature to retrieve the original page with .pdf links you can use to check out this researcher's data.

    **[Also see the current, revised page: www.sunrisepage.com/rosewell.htm,
    where the Australian researcher has changed the page, removing the .pdf links still available through the tinyurl link, since he's apparently intending to incorporate the data in them, and additional info, in a prospective book he intends to sell for $40]

    I got two items wrong: the original webpage was sunrisepage.com, not sunrise.com, and in the reference on .pdf page 71 of section 5 (An Australian Researcher's Perspective), the name of the "Russian Metallurgist" is actually Dr. Andrzej Calka, not Andrei. Dr. Calka is an associate professor in the Materials Science and Engineering Dept. at the University of Wollongong in Australia.

    His skills and expertise include: Non-conventional materials processing and synthesis of advanced materials, mechano-chemical synthesis, rapid solidification processing, glassy metals, super-hard materials, novel reduction processes; nanostructural materials, hydrogenated materials, high temperature consolidation of powdered materials, high resolution electron microscopy and analysis; X-ray diffractometry, and thermal analysis.

    The specific reference to Dr. Calka is in a footnote on page 71, where the unidentified Aussie researcher provided a copy of the 1980 Berlitz and Moore book, "The Roswell Incident," to Calka asking what materials best fit the grayish steel appearance and unusual shape memory flexibility of the debris described by first-hand witnesses, such as Marcel and Brazel, and Dr. Calka told the researcher in 1994 after reading those parts of the book that the material Nitinol best fit the description of the color and characteristics of the metallic foil noted in this early book on Roswell.

    Technically, Nick may have been first to publish info on a supposed Roswell-Nitinol linkage as his book came out in 2005, but there are indications that the Aussie researcher was selling CD's of his research linking Roswell to Nitinol as early as 1999, with much more technical detail, as this unidentified researcher (who prefers to maintain the privacy of his identity, unfortunately) did quite extensive research into the history and technical papers in Dr. Calka's metallurgical library of both Titanium, Ti alloys, and TiNi shape memory alloys, including Nitinol itself, which oddly the researcher seems to believe is the actual alloy found in the debris field at Roswell, despite one crucial difference in the "memory metal" Nitinol and the metallic foil and strips alleged to have been found at Roswell:

    Nitinol requires a significant temperature change to return to it's original fabricated shape after bending or shaping. The metallic debris at Roswell, in turn, did not.

    Brazel, Marcel, and other first-hand witnesses described the Roswell metallic foil as being able to be shaped by physical force only, like crumpling a piece in your hand, and which, when the force was removed, or the crumpled foil placed on a table, would spontaneously uncrumple and smooth itself out without heat or cold being applied to effect that state change.

    So whatever the metallic debris allegedly recovered at Roswell might have been, it was not Nitinol, per se, as Tony has stressed in prior articles on this blog.

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Steve,

    There seems to be a need for the anonymous Australian researcher, Nick Redfern, and Tony Bragalia to be the firstest with the mostest when it comes to Nitinol which, as you note, doesn't seem to be what the Roswell story indicated the debris was.

    I, for one, find nitinol to be nothing more than an adjunct to the Roswell story, and attention to it misplaced.

    A recent discovery (or expose) at Berkeley about a glass-metal seems more likely a material for a construct or vehicle, and corresponds, somewhat, to the blue-green glass that LaPaz and others noticed -- in the vicinity! -- of the supposed crash near Roswell.

    The point of Mr. Bragalia's research is that alloys of an exotic kind were being studied and are being studied at Battelle and other research agencies -- many with hints that they were among the alleged Roswell debris.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Gilles wrote (deleted from the blog:

    "Seriously, you dont see your comment stupid here? I see it stupid for
    my part."

    and as yet undeleted:

    "Waooo: what stupid preconception and prejudgment adding nothing to the topic..."

    Rich can always post up my reply to your first. Seems fair to me.

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Apparently we're missing some posts and comments.

    We haven't deleted anything, as far as I can tell, and I've looked at all the postings that Google and Blogger tells us have been made to the blog, and I see nothing that Gilles wrote or Don replied to that haven't appeared online.

    But Google and Blogger are goofy, so perhaps, Don, you might write a clarifying comment outlining your pique.

    And Gilles, you might present a clearer view of why Don's comments irk your skeptical sensibilities.

    Of course, none of that has anything to do with memory metal or the "who wrote what first" about Nitinol, but it might clear the toxic air that is hovering over this topic.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Rich "Apparently we're missing some posts and comments.

    We haven't deleted anything..."

    Those of us who check the box to receive comments via email have Gilles' first that I've noted. I believe such have to be published to the blog in order to be emailed to subscribers.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Don:

    I can't find any comments from Gilles or anyone else that we haven't moderated.

    Are you sure it was for this topic and not one of the later topics on the same subject?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • My apologies. I see Gilles comment got (re?)posted since I'd looked, but my response has not.

    It doesn't matter.

    Just a point of order.

    If I want to post here, I guess I should just accept that Gilles gets to call me stupid whenever he wants. But after awhile his posts give me the munchies for freedom fries.

    I'm not concerned about Gilles thinking I'm stupid. I consider the source. I usually don't reply to him.

    I do hope that if he is a professional in psychology that he is not a clinician.

    You wrote:

    "If you think that the Roswell witnesses have remembered events just as they occurred, or that they didn't confabulate is sheer stupidity, and I know you are not a stupid man."

    Well, thanks for that, but since I've never written anything of the sort, I have to wonder what I'm writing that would lead you to think I did.

    One last time and I am done. This is what I've written:

    The vicissitudes of memory are well known, but you cannot claim someones' memory is false unless you first prove it is false. Just pointing to the the general faultiness of memory is not proof. It is not even poor evidence. It is nothing at all.

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Rich:

    You said: "...There seems to be a need for the anonymous Australian researcher, Nick Redfern, and Tony Bragalia to be the firstest with the mostest when it comes to Nitinol which, as you note, doesn't seem to be what the Roswell story indicated the debris was."

    From my perspective, that's certainly not the case AT ALL. I don't feel any need to be the first with the most. UFOs aren't actually important enough to me, or my life, to worry about being the first with the most!

    Rather, I simply offered that I wasn't aware of anyone who had published on the Nitinol-Roswell story before Body Snatchers, and that's all.

    But, now that we have the Australian info, then of course that clearly demonstrates that we can take it back much further.

    But that doesn't make me irate that I wasn't the first to mention it, however!!!

    Again, I come back to what I still think is an important issue - that the Colonel specifically wanted to discuss Nitinol and crashed UFOs from a disinformation perspective, rather than the Nitinol-UFO controversy having an literal reality in some "back-engineering" scenario.

    I could be wrong, but I do think his words suggests he knew of a real Nitinol-UFO link, but that it was his belief the link was purely born out of a spy-op and he thought, therefore, that Nitinol was not born out of back-engineering the Roswell debris.

    And, it's interesting (in my view) that he discussed all this years ago, and now we ARE seeing researchers like Tony making a UFO-Nitinol link.

    I think the Colonel anticipated this and new that one day the Nitinol-UFO story would surface, but which is the true story is the big issue.

    And, I refer people again to those links I posted earlier in this thread linking to the 2 UFO Hunters links at You Tube.

    Again, look at Jesse Marcel Jr's face - he is VERY impressed by one piece of material that he describes as being VERY similar to what his father described...but it was just acetate.

    So, if Marcel Jr was very impressed by nothing more than acetate (which the footage shows he clearly is), we really dont have to bring Nitinol into the equation ot explain the debris - which makes me think EVEN MORE that the Colonel's words about the whole Nitinol-UFO angle being nothing more than a Cold War ruse are correct.

    If Marcel Jr (a key figure in the Roswell case from the beginning) was so impressed by acetate, maybe the debris wasn't so extraordinary at all. The other guy there too at the UFO Hunters show, Earl, was equally impressed with the acetate, as being extremely close to what he handled.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Nick:

    I understood your Nitinol reference.

    And while Tony is contending with the Australian bloke about who got to the Nitinol story first, I merely lumped you in with that mild imbroglio, to make a point.

    And that point was that Nitinol is very likely NOT the metal (or a metal) that was amongst the alleged Roswell debris.

    It's ended up as a dental adjunct, not as a primary ingredient in the Stealth bomber or any other aircraft, as far as I can tell.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Oh, I freely acknowledge that the Australian made the Roswell-Nitinol connection as early as the 1990s. He had a rudimentary idea of the tie-in and published on an internet-only available CD in 1999 or so...

    I contacted the Australian in 2008 about his online material that I had found buried on Google. I found it because I was myself independently engaged in the same line of inquiry. The Australian did not "inspire" my research- I was already making the Roswell-Nitinol connection as early as 2003- when I first became aware of such a thing as Shape Memory Alloys.

    I actually dialoged with the Australian and shared leads and analysis with him (including the Progress Reports.)

    No "competition" here.

    The problem is that because the Australian insists on anonymity, he is unable to make phone calls, email using his real identity, file FOIA's etc. He is very limited in his investigative abilities because of this.

    The Australian believes that US Intelligence will kill if anyone gets to close to the metal. And he says this in all seriousness...

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Is not this Nitinol 'connection' getting out of hand?

    Nick won't tell us the name of his colonel informant. And it was only a 'spy ruse' anyway, and nothing to do with real ETs. Tony says he communicated (how?) with the anonymous Australian metallurgist, but this guy also won't reveal his name (or Tony won't). And now we have Marcel jr handling material that was probably only acetate. In which case his father probably only handled acetate also, or something akin to it.

    So where's the big story? Nitinol ended up as a dental adjunct, according to RR. It never formed part of US military aircraft or weapons.

    I suspect that Nitinol is a giant red herring in the Roswell discussions.

    Please will someone disprove me by producing some REAL documentation to show that it was back-engineered from the Roswell debris. And please, if the topic is to be taken seriously, can we stop this continual reference to anonymous people. Ufology is bedevilled with this, back to the time of Adamski (and before).

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Well, CDA,, let me try to sum this Nitinol thing up….

    An anonymous Australian bloke says he was the first to make a Roswell-Nitinol connection.

    Nick Redfern’s “Colonel” is in the running for that honor.

    Anthony Bragalia came to the Nitinol connection independently of both the Aussie and the Colonel.

    Nitinol is a metal alloy that Battelle and other groups have studied, some of the studiers thinking or implying that their study-piece came from the alleged Roswell crash of 1947.

    You, CDA, Gilles, and I don’t think that there was an ET-crash at Roswell.

    Gilles and you, like me, think that a few ravenous ufologists gilded the Roswell “event” making it into the story of myth (mythos) it is today.

    I think something strange happened near Roswell but was so insignificant that Roswellians forgot about it within days.

    (I’m not sure what Gilles or you think happened at Roswell, if anything.)

    Sourcerer Don doesn’t give a hoot about Nitinol, but Steve Sawyer seems to have a grasp of the Nitinol sequence.

    Nitinol is an interesting alloy, but not an alloy that has been employed by the military or aircraft industry for airplanes or flying craft of any kind.

    Dentists like Nitinol, but dentists like anything that will enhance their practices and yearly income.

    Scientists and researchers working on Nitinol or studying the alloy have acted strangely when Anthony Bragalia has broached Roswell in connection with the metal.

    Nick Redfern notes that Marcel Jr. and a TV personality were wowed by an acetate sample, as you note CDA, so perhaps Marcel Jr, was whelmed by something prosaic when his father showed him a piece from the Foster farm, and Jr.’s astonishment has mushroomed into memory metal, exploited by those ravenous ufologists who created the Roswell story for various nefarious reasons.

    Anonymous persons blot the UFO landscape and are given deference, whereas in other venues, anonymous persons are usually eschewed.

    So we are back to square one – Nitinol takes us no further along in explaining the Roswell incident, nor UFOs in particular.

    And as Gilles so presciently states, that’s ufology.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "Sourcerer Don doesn’t give a hoot about Nitinol"

    True.

    Acetate in liquid form was used to coat the fabric skins of aircraft, and I assume gliders and even maybe some kinds of balloon.

    Whether such materials would display the characteristics witnesses claimed about "memory metal", I do not know.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • To all on this list, there is one important issue that many either aren't aware of, or that they have misconstrued, or that they have simply assumed is correct when it isn't.

    That issue is this - Jesse Marcel Jr has gone on record as saying he saw the curious I-Beams that his father brought home, and also saw the foil-like debris too.

    And because his father showed him the foil-like material, this has led to the 100 percent erroneous assumption that Marcel Sr demonstrated to Marcel Jr the "memory" aspects of the metal.

    He did not, however. This has been mentioned erroneously in lots of places, and was even shown in the movie Roswell, where the young Marcel is shown the alleged extraordinary nature of the debris.

    But, this is all wrong. Very few people take the time to realize that Marcel Jr has gone on the record as stating he never personally saw the material wadded up and then return to its original shape. He was told that by his father. He only saw the material strewn in his house for a brief period.

    I have to wonder: if I had no qualms about bringing the foil, I-beams etc to show my son, I think that I would have shown him evidence of the most amazing part - how the foil wadded up and returned to its original shape. But Marcel Sr didn't. He only told Marcel Jr it had memory capabilities. Why???

    I don't know, but I do know that while Marcel Jr did see the foil, he did not see its memory aspects - those who have said that have simply not carefully followed what Marcel Jr has specifically said about what he saw and handled.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Steve wrote: "So whatever the metallic debris allegedly recovered at Roswell might have been, it was not Nitinol, per se, as Tony has stressed in prior articles on this blog."

    Totaly agree. But "Nitinol" have been added in the Roswell Myth narrative processes, despite what you point, what have been pointed by several others, the ones Roswell ETH proponents call "Skeptics" or "Debunkers".

    BTW : I am facing a "kitchen glove" (to take the dish very hot). When I twist it, he goes back into shape.

    It is an extraterrestrial material, or Nitinol made in, or a memory metal material. That's (ufo) logic.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • I was going to mention what Nick said about Jesse Jr., because I couldn't understand the connection made to how he thought acetate was so similar. He didn't say it was the same. It could be similar, but it can't be creased, and then unbend. It can only curve. If it were creased, it would stay that way somewhat. And none of the other materials were close enough in an obvious way. The Acetate was the obvious choice there.

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Nick wrote:

    "That issue is this - Jesse Marcel Jr has gone on record as saying he saw the curious I-Beams that his father brought home, and also saw the foil-like debris too."

    I wonder what Marcel jr really remembers about the debris his dad brought home. He was only 11 at the time and appears to have told none of his school friends about it and to have been quite unmoved by it until the fateful days of 1979, when Friedman & Moore got at him. By then, of course, his dad would have prodded him a bit too.

    In a 1981 letter to an enquirer he actually wrote about 'eye-beams'(!). This indicates to me that he did not know what I-beams were and had merely heard the term from his father. Could someone know what an I-beam is and misspell it in this way?

    What I am saying is that Marcel jr probably recalled little or nothing about the debris, and is only repeating what his dad told him, and probably what Friedman/Moore learned from his dad (and passed on to Jesse jr).

    And the Nitinol-Roswell connection is as elusive as ever. Come on Tony , find some official papers that refer to the Roswell connection. It is up to you to find them. They certainly exist, if the connection is real.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Rich wrote: "I think something strange happened near Roswell but was so insignificant that Roswellians forgot about it."

    "Near" is nearly 100 miles. Roswell was convenient for the army, is all. Some Roswellians would know about something that happened in Roswell, such as the press release and Brazel's interview at the RDR, but what would they know about what happened in another county?

    Among the things to move to the back burner are the Roswellians, those who say they popped over to the debris field on the Foster Ranch and had a peek, those who know about other crash sites closer to Roswell -- Roswellians like Ragsdale and Kaufman.

    The "incident" occured in Lincoln County in the neighborhood of Corona and Carrizozo.

    Tony's on the right track when he turns his investigative attention to the Lincoln County ranchers.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, January 23, 2011  

  • Don (or others), do you already grant credit(s) to Kaufman, Ragsdale, Dennis and Anderson tales, for example?

    What I find "awesome" in the myth, one again, it is that what they have introduced in the tale (myth), despite prooved as fraudulent, are again in the core of the myth! (the nurse, other sites, archeologists, bodies, autopsy, MPs harrassing citizens, etc...). Investigators repeat it as a Gospel, without questions (excepted maybe Kevin Randle).

    Roswell investigators seem to have forgotten first hand testimonies, and are prefering focalising resources on the second hand, third hand (and hoaxer) pists. Or indirect things having participated to the narrative processes of the myth.

    Without offense, I "see" some investigators to be in what Human Sciences call a "Self-fulfilling prophecy": the Nitinol pist is a good example of this.
    The ETH Roswell belief creates a behavior to research "things", and the feed back of such investigations reinforce their ETH belief on Roswell myth, and realize what they want to believe, despite they found "nothing" significant.

    All of the recent findings are full of confirmation bias imho. Well, that's just my humble opinion, and that's ufology too.

    Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Monday, January 24, 2011  

  • Going back to the power of myth and Hamlet's Mill, one of the characteristics of the material they reviewed in the book, was that the myth itself stood in for was, even now a remarkable knowledge of astronomy, which was unfortunately over written by a literal interpretation of a fictional vehicle created in the verbal transmission of knowledge.
    I am not an expert on Roswell but I do have an interest in history and how it is recorded. I do not mean this in a sarcastic manner, but this discussion reminds me of those that discussed plots surrounding Lincoln's assassination based on circumstantial evidence.
    It also reminds me of Chaos Theory, in that a triangulation of data that points to a specific root cause can be a statistical probability and nothing more. To triangulate what happened, where do the investigators agree rather than disagree? In this, the UFO aspect in of itself becomes a moot point inasmuch as if intelligence agents were not involved, it would be an act of God, based on common sense not a metal bending thing ie; Six degrees of separation.
    Historically, forget UFO's and look at context, sociology and the political climate, and what the CIA does. We seem to focus on microscopic details and not the holistic global view.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, January 25, 2011  

  • Bruce,

    You make good points, always...

    However, some of us are immersed in the Sherlockian arena, where it's details that will "solve the crime" a la Columbo (too).

    The Gestaltian view is usually overlooked, unfortunately, by the UFO rabble (us).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 25, 2011  

  • This is nothing to do with Nitinol or Titanium, but I have often asked myself if 'Roswell is ET' is consistent with the 'abduction by ET' scenario.

    Here we have one case of a crash of an alleged ET craft, with all its attendant conspiracy theory. The conspiracy thesis is necessary to explain why no hardware, bodies or documents exist.

    Yet at the same time ETs are abducting humans all over the place, perhaps several thousand or more cases spread all over the US and many other countries. But there can't be a conspiracy over the abductions - there have been far too many for this, and they are world-wide.

    So how, for 63 years, has one country managed to keep a lid on one crash landing when all the while humans are being abducted the world over? And why would the US authorities, knowing about these abductions, even try to keep a lid on this one ET crash (which could occur again at any time)?

    Abductions and Roswell look strangely inconsistent. Or have I missed something?

    If it is the sheer number of witnesses who will force the acceptance of a phenomenon, surely the number of abductees far exceeds the number of Roswell witnesses, by factor of ten at least.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, January 25, 2011  

  • Christopher:

    Thanks for the opportunity to segue, as one of the nitinol posters asked us to dry up the memory metal "discussion" -- I won't say why.

    You make an interesting point (or two).

    But abductions are really fantasies of an abnormal kind, whereas the Roswell event is based in fact: something happened near Roswell in 1947.

    Whether that "something" -- I stress again -- is prosaic or profound is yet to be determined.

    The Roswell aftermath (beginning with the 1980s influx of hypotheses and musings by UFO "researchers") intrigues on many levels; e.g., mythology, government cover-up, ufological machinations, an "accident" that has been extrapolated into an ET visitation, sociological manifestations, and a few other categorically inclined possibilities, which we have tried to enumerate at this blog.

    Abductions also fall into some of the same categorical imperatives but, at heart, stem from a mental aberration that is yet to be defined adequately.

    To mix Roswell with abductions is to mix apples with oranges, as it were.

    Roswell has meat of a kind; alien abductions are tofu.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 25, 2011  

  • Part 1:

    In an attempt to clarify some of the issues that have been raised here since I made my initial comment about the anonymous Australian researcher, I’d like to try to delineate some of the apparent conflicts and offer some of my own opinions about the matters being argued over.

    First, let’s take a meta-step back to the overall issues that relate to shape memory alloys and first-hand witness statements about the characteristics of the metallic foil debris allegedly found and gathered by various partiies from the Roswell debris field.

    Nick is correct that Jesse Marcel Jr. did not personally handle the foil debris to observe its shape memory behavior, but his father, Major Jesse Marcel Sr., apparently did.

    That’s who I was referring to when I mentioned Brazel and Marcel as having handled the debris and observing the shape memory behavior. David Rudiak has a webpage which lists 20 first-hand witnesses who either observed the “uncrumpling” and smoothing effect, or handled the material themselves and saw this effect directly, or at least said they did.

    See: http://tinyurl.com/4hra9gt

    Let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, only half those supposed first-hand witnesses from Rudiak’s list actually either handled the material themselves or observed someone else crumpling a piece of it and the resulting spontaneous uncrumpling and smoothing effect at room temperature when the physical force of crumpling in the hand was released.

    That makes at least 10 different first-hand witnesses who allege the metallic foil had behavior characteristics unknown in any alloy known at the time. Where would all these witnesses have derived this description of the foil behavior in the first place? Crushing paper-backed tin foil or even oxidized acetate-covered neoprene debris fragments, ala Mogul balloon and rawin radar target material, would not have this characteristic, would they?

    As I noted, Nitinol does not normally have this characteristic, of unfolding or returning to its original fabricated form, unless heat or electrical energy is applied directly to this alloy, although there are modern formulations such as dental wires and glasses frames than can be bent somewhat without heat and will return to their fabrication shape.

    This is due to the “springiness” of its pseudo or superelasticity characteristic of Nitinol, not shape memory behavior displayed under heating, which is much more dramatic and forceful an effect.

    So, Nitinol, or similar shape memory alloys created since, does not usually have the ability to return to original fabrication state without the application of either electrical or heat energy sources directly applied.

    To me, this means Nitinol or related shape memory alloys created by metallurgical science could not have been the metallic foil material found at the Roswell debris field, unless it was a much more advanced formulation with additional alloying materials or fabrication methods applied, regardless of what the Australian researcher may have concluded, than existed in 1947 in particular.

    I think the Australian researcher is incorrect in his belief that Nitinol was the basis for the Roswell debris.

    Tony agrees with this, and has said so quite clearly in previous articles. However, and this is one of the issues that have contributed to the confusion, it’s obvious that the metallic foil from Roswell displayed similar, unusual shape memory alloy behavior and characteristics to Nitinol after being crumpled up, only without heat or other energy source having to be applied to unfold or smooth out.

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Saturday, January 29, 2011  

  • Part 2:

    So,what does Nitinol itself have to do with an alleged “Roswell-Battelle-Nitinol connection”?

    If you review Tony’s articles on the subject, he plainly explains that the connection is that, supposedly, some of the original Roswell debris that was transported to Wright Field in 1947 was examined and analyzed by USAF material scientists there and this “uncrumpling” effect was observed, which naturally would have raised questions as to how that effect was created, or what it was based upon.

    Subsequently, it appears, according to Tony, that either some of this Roswell debris material was either provided to Battelle for further metallurgical analysis, or that the Wright Field scientists provided at least some data about a metallic substance that had these characteristics and asked Battelle to try to find an alloy that had this kind of behavior, without the actual debris samples themselves being provided to Battelle.

    This scenario is unclear to me—either Battelle was provided actual Roswell debris samples or they didn’t. NOL had access to Battelle data, metallurgical libraries, and other government source data available, I'm sure, so no actual debris or specific TiNi data need have been surreptitiously supplied to NOL.

    I have seen no documentation or genuine evidence that establishes or convinces me that Roswell debris or TiNi alloy data was provided to Battelle, although that could have occurred, just that the sufficient proof is lacking, IMHO.

    [Just to be clear, I endorse Tony’s efforts to dig up more original data regarding the details of the Roswell incident, but I don’t necessarily agree with either his interpretation or conclusions. We, as gentlemen, agree to disagree on elements of his contentions and analysis.

    But Tony is doing some good, original research and has come up with interesting documentation no one I know of has previously, and so I encourage his efforts, if not all of his ways of interpreting the data he’s come up with.

    I also think deep peer-review is called for, to better quantify his data and the conclusions he personally has reached about what it all means or actually indicates.]

    Tony then has documented and described how formal research at Battelle under contract to Wright began at some point in either 1948 or 1949 into means of purifying titanium by using an arc furnace that only Battelle, not Wright, had, and to further study and analyze certain Titanium/Nickel alloys, among others, for potential use in prospective aircraft due to its strength and relatively light weight compared to the steel alloys that had been previously been used in aircraft.

    It seems part of this project was to find the means to purify Titanium through processes of ultra-high heating and related new reduction processes to enable large-scale, lower-cost commercial production of titanium than had been done previously, for use in advanced aircraft.

    The USAF made Battelle the central research center for Titanium and related alloy research, analysis, and the primary resource location for all related data, due to Battelle’s renowned expertise in metallurgy.

    If you read the details of the First and Second Progress Reports from Battelle on their Titanium research, you can also see that Titanium alloys, including some with Nickel, were being investigated, although it appears to me upon careful reading of the progress reports and final report on Titanium research that Battelle did not discover Nitinol or its remarkable shape memory characteristics.

    I personally suspect that did not occur until sometime in 1958 at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory (NOL), but that is my opinion based on the available documentation, not proof.

    By Blogger stevesaw, at Saturday, January 29, 2011  

  • Part 3:

    The controversy about when the shape memory characteristics of the 50/50 and later 55/45 TiNi alloy were actually discovered, either by Battelle as early as 1949, or at NOL nearly 10 years later, are at the heart of this debate.

    The supposition by some is that Battelle discovered, as a result of either being seeded with some of the original Roswell debris, or at least information derived from such analysis at Wright, the shape memory and other unusual characteristics and behavior of Nitinol but kept it secret, due to its alleged origins as being Roswell debris.

    But neither the first or second progress reports from 1949 of Battelle’s Titanium study indicate they had knowledge of the shape memory characteristics of the particular TiNi alloy that is Nitinol. Nor does the major, final Battelle Titanium report that the progress reports, of which there were several, were preliminaries to.

    One question is when the TiNi phase diagram, [that showed the molecular transformation (martensitic phase change to the austenitic state and back) capability that is where the basis for Nitinol’s shape memory ability comes from] first originated and is described. When and where?

    [There is a major difference between a metallurgical diagram of Titanium/Nickel and other metals alloyed with Titanium, and the kind of phase diagram showing the martensitic to austenitic shape memory characteristics of the particular formulation of TiNi that became known as Nitinol. I know of no TiNi phase diagram showing an alloy of the 55/45 formulation from Battelle or elsewhere prior to Nitinol’s discovery at NOL prior to 1958. I’m sure Tony will correct me if I’m wrong or have overlooked such a phase diagram existing in either the late 40’s or early 50’s.]

    Did that derive from Battelle or NOL? Was NOL seeded with data from Battelle’s earlier studies, and seredipitously re-discovered its shape memory capability or did Battelle know of it long before? This is crucial, and from what I’ve been able to gather, remains debatable. Simply having developed or understanding the atomic phase diagram or transformation capacity of a TiNi alloy does not mean Battelle discovered that when heat was applied to such a 50/50 or 55/45 alloy of TiNi, the shape memory behavior became evident.

    But that is unknown, or at least uncertain. Tony thinks Battelle did know, kept that data out of its reports in the 1949 to 1952 period, due to its origins, and that perhaps either NOL was provided selected data from Battelle to do further research and coincidentally discovered the shape memory behavor on their own, or may have simply replicated findings which Battelle knew of much earlier but did not disclose.

    The public history of the discovery of Nitinol’s shape memory behavior was supposedly only discovered accidentally by NOL, after a piece of the material, bent into an accordian shape by William Buehler, was shown to a lab management meeting of NOL researchers and administrators sometime in 1958 to demonstrate by flexing it , its fatigue resistance, or resiliancy and springiness, and as it was being handed around, the associate director of NOL, David Muzzey, then applied heat from his pipe lighter to the bent-up sample of Nitinol, and the material suddenly straightened out, surprising everyone there, and which then allegedly was the beginning of further research to understand the shape memory behavior of Nitinol and how it might be applied to military, aerospace, aircraft, and medical components.

    By Blogger stevesaw, at Saturday, January 29, 2011  

  • Part 4:

    CDA said, above, “Nitinol ended up as a dental adjunct, according to RR. It never formed part of US military aircraft or weapons.”

    This is not true. And, as Tony has pointed out, has yet to acknowledge that fact. Nitinol was first considered as one of 12 alloys for use in the re-entry nosecones of Atlas missiles. It has been used in F-15 and F-16 jet fighter aircraft for use as flexible couplings, due to its other important characteristic, superelasticity. It has been used in advanced spy satellites in their antennas, where by compressing a Nitinol antenna into an onboard pod, and then applying energy once in orbit, the antenna will expand out into its original fabrication shape to create a rigid, very large (up to a little over 100 yards across) antenna that remains hardened in space for use in overhead SIGINT surveillance. Nitinol has also been studied and used for activating flight surface actuators. I would bet there’s some Nitinol or equivalent in the stealthy B-2 bomber and F-117 stealth fighter for couplings and actuators, at least.

    I’m sure, if you want to do the online research, there are a number of other applications and uses for Nitinol you will find in military, aerospace, and aircraft components, in addition to dental, medical, or other industrial hydraulic, pneumatic, and coupling uses, such as heat-exchange motors, due to its shape memory, super-elasticity, and fatigue resistance characteristics. My glasses frame is made of Nitinol, btw. Flipped out my young grand-nephews a little when I bent them one time and they sprung back into original shape. 8^}

    Today there are a wide variety of shape memory “smart materials,” including “triple-shape” advanced “glass-metal” or polymer and ceramic-like combined materials with even more sophisticated capabilities than Nitinol, which is another reason why I doubt the Roswell debris was Nitinol itself.

    Also, among the alleged debris were other super-strong matertials without the shape memory behavior, such as the I-beams described by some Roswell witnesses as being impervious to attempts to cut, bend, or burn.

    None of that, including the metallic foil behavior, sounds like the residue of a tin-foil, paper-backed RAWIN target assembly or balloon fragments. But again, without actual samples of such materials, we are left with the anecdotal reports of supposed witnesses.

    Could this entire group of people all made such errors in either honesty, judgment, or been subject to belated memory defects? Why would they have described these varying, unusual characteristics with such uniformity when initially asked in the first place? That seems rather unlikely.

    I think what also confuses these issues is that Battelle was involved in UFO statistical and analytical research for the USAF on sub-contract under Projects Stork, White Stork, and Have Stork between at least 1951 up until at least 1966, and that some of the personnel and scientists involved in that UFO research, such as Dr. Howard C. Cross (of the infamous “Pentacle Memo” as initially disclosed by Jacques Vallee in Forbidden Science, Vol.1 in 1992) have gotten into the mix. Cross, and the man he sent his famous memo to, Col. Miles E. Goll, are extremely interesting players in the UFO phenomenon, or at least the aspect that involves U.S. government study of the phenomenon under Project Blue Book.

    Battelle is the natural place to look to, where such metallurgical analysis and related study of the earlier parts of the history and government data about the UFO phenomenon would have, and in fact, did take place. This is well documented., although not really well known as to the voluminous details of same. Some of it, an unknown proportion, remains apparently still classified, and which raises all sorts of additional interesting questions, but they are tangential to the main issues at hand here.

    By Blogger stevesaw, at Saturday, January 29, 2011  

  • Part 5:

    I also think, and agree with Nick, that he is not trying to be “the firstest with the mostest” as to who mentioned or knew of the Roswell-Nitinol linkage first.

    He merely noted he thought he might be the first to publish such mention of a linkage, even though it was in the context of a counter-intelligence operation where such a linkage was covertly suggested, not that it actually occurred, and even then he adds the proviso that he’s not sure that the story he was given by “The Colonel” was not itself a kind of psyop or CI diversion, possibly related to Roswell.

    That’s why I made follow-up comment to the Australian researcher being on this trail since at least 1994, and publishing his data as early as 1999, and making it available on CD for $99 originally, although it was little known about in the UFO research community before Tony mentioned it in prior articles.

    It only appeared, as far as I can tell, on the sunrisepage.com website on July 4, 2007, according to archive.org (copy http://www.sunrisepage.com/roswell.htm into the Wayback Machine to see this), which then puts it after Nick’s publication of “Body Snatchers in the Desert” in book form in 2005, technically. But the Australian researcher did publish as early as 1999 on CD.

    So the Australian was first, but in a way that very few knew about. Tony discovered this sunrisepage.com Roswell-Nitinol data by the Australian researcher presumably when he was already researching links between Roswell , Nitinol, and Battelle as early as 2003.

    So, once again, an odd seredipity and coincidental interest seems to have occurred. I liken this to the controversy over the original invention of the telephone: Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell were both working on it, but to summarize, Bell supposedly got to the patent office first. Or so his lawyers argued, eventually successfully, even though technically not true. It’s a weird story.

    See: http://tinyurl.com/2maynp

    As far as Nick’s scenario, from “The Colonel,” that Nitinol was presented somehow to an FTD person (who was suspected of espionage_ as having come from an extraterrestrial source as part of a counter-intelligence (CI) operation to trace the transfer of this “bogus” data from the FTD suspect to his Soviet handler, I can see that as possibly having happened, also, and does not refute or prove, either way, in turn, that potentially some Roswell debris may (or may not) be the basis for Battelle’s early research on Titanium alloys or NOL’s 1958 discovery of Nitinol’s shape memory and other unusual characteristics. Those are separate issues, not necessarily directly related.

    This could have simply been a smart ploy to enhance the alleged significance of the material and particularly its alleged source to the FTD suspect to insure he would act upon it quickly, and thus perhaps more obviously exposed himself and his handler to the CI operatives involved in such an investigation.

    What is odd though, if this CI op resulted in arrests of the suspect and the handler, is why no records of the arrests seem to be available to document this operation. This means one of a few things: either the op never happened, and “The Colonel,” who only heard about this from someone else in assumably the military or intelligence community, second-hand, was told a tale for whatever reason, OR the op did happen, “The Colonel” learned about it, and much later told Nick about it, and the reason the arrests are not part of any known public record or media report is because the arrests were kept secret.

    This has happened before in certain espionage investigations, usually to keep certain aspects or data classified and not exposed in court by discovery procedures. Only if an arrest results in a public trial, and conviction, would classified data potentially be exposed.

    By Blogger stevesaw, at Saturday, January 29, 2011  

  • Part 6:

    I would bet, if story of “The Colonel” is true, the case did not go to court and the disposition and consequences to the suspect and his Soviet controller was “handled” differently, to avoid revealing classified info of some kind.

    An informal plea deal with lesser penalties may have been reached, and the Soviet handler may just of been expelled to keep things quiet. Of course, this is speculative extrapolation on my part.

    Why would they have been kept secret, or may still be classified today? One of two scenarios are possible: first, if Roswell was not a crashed extraterrestrial vehicle, and Nitinol was created by NOL, but little known of in the early 1960’s, intentionally adding the “legend” that the unusual material was extraterrestrial would have increased its potential intelligence value to the suspect and his handler, regardless of whether true or not, as it only mattered whether they believed it or not. Or, the Nitinol could have originally derived from Roswell debris, possibly, and that would obviously be kept secret.

    There are a large body of NSCIDs, PDDs, EOs, and other forms of executive branch national security decisions, regulations, and orders that remain fully classified, and that constrict and prevent declassification and exposure of certain kinds of intelligence, military and civilian, or CI projects, operations, and practices, particularly “sources and methods,” as they are called, that provide ambiguity, misdirection, cover, and deliberate plausible deniability.

    I suspect the Roswell incident is still covered by some of these provisions, regardless of whether it was a crashed ET vehicle or not. Something quite weird happened in the Roswell incident, or was made to appear so, and which may have backfired, but I doubt very much it involved Mogul balloons. And useful lessons applicable to CI purposes and methods were most probably belatedly learned and used later, if not then.

    Why might it be kept secret if the Nitinol was not derived from ET debris? Because the general ploy of using a “legend” of UFOs and alien artifacts or vehicles as a cover for other CI operations has been successfully employed, such as in the Bennewitz affair, and the Dulce myth picked up by Lear and Cooper, for example, or the MJ-12 fabrication picked up and run with by the Woods, Friedman, and many others over time.

    Such alleged esoteric or UFO/alien cover stories are part of what would be termed “sources and methods” of intelligence and counter-intelligence methodology and means of investigation, or bait, and are exempt from disclosure under national security law, regulations, and court precedent.

    If it works, or is believed, regardless of whether true or not, the military and intelligence community would not and under law cannot be compelled to disclose such various successful “sources and methods.”

    Of course, this last interpretation or possibility also raises the question of whether Haut’s press release and subsequent CI ops related to Roswell rumor-mongering and providing simulated UFO debris, etc., by AAF CIC agents to create the false impression of a crashed UFO incident as a cover for another incident or situation that remains secret is also possible.

    It’s this inherent ambiguity, staging, and CI “methodology” that could be the basis for continuing secrecy, because using this cover has been quite effective and useful several times, kind of like a CI “Swiss Army knife”—it has many uses, as others in their comments above have also noted.

    By Blogger stevesaw, at Saturday, January 29, 2011  

  • Part 7:

    As for La Paz’s archives, Don, I’ve made some preliminary inquiries. I’m not too hopeful, for even if such an archive or collection exists, I would guess it might have been “scrubbed” and so would have little or no significant data regarding Roswell or related UFO matters.

    After a general inquiry by email to Carl Agee, the director of the Institute of Meteoritics at the University of New Mexico, which La Paz founded and worked at for several years, including teaching at UNM, Agee mentioned they have a handful of letters by La Paz at the IOM, but no archive.

    According to Agee, La Paz’s papers were removed from UNM after his death, and he heard a rumor that La Paz’s wife or remaining family destroyed or disposed of La Paz’s papers after his passing, so there may be no archive or collection of his papers extant.

    Don, have you tried to locate La Paz’s archives yourself or tried to call any of his now adult children to find out about same? Maybe Tony could inquire of some of La Paz's descendents.

    Rich, where you said, “A recent discovery (or expose) at Berkeley about a glass-metal seems more likely a material for a construct or vehicle, and corresponds, somewhat, to the blue-green glass that LaPaz and others noticed -- in the vicinity! -- of the supposed crash near Roswell,” I should note that this kind of metallic glass, otherwise known as amorphous metal, is not really a form of glass, as no silica, which is used to fabricate normal glass, is used.

    “Glassy metals,” as they are also called, are metal alloys which are cooled so rapidly from the liquid state (originally in 1960 at a megakelvin per second, but since the 90’s can now be produced at a cooling rate of 1 kelvin per second) that they are not able to go into a crystalline state, and whose atomic structure is disordered, or amorphously arranged, which gives the alloy different characteristics than if cooled or annealed normally.

    So “glass” a bit of a misnomer, and is a technical term referring to the quick cooling of the alloys used. It can be bent, and is up to three times stronger than Titanium, and may have an application in nano-printing, among others.

    But, I don’t think it corresponds at all to the bluish glassy glazed area, tens of miles from the crash site(s), that La Paz allegedly inspected and analyzed. I also suspect this bluish area may have had a very unusual natural origin, but may not have initially been recognized as such in the brouhaha surrounding Roswell at the time in 1947 when the controversy initially broke out.

    It’s related, in a way, but not to either the debris field, materials found there, or the supposed crash site of the Roswell incident itself. I leave it to others to investigate all that, since Roswell is not a primary interest of mine, since so many others are involved in exploring its minutiae, although obviously I'm intrigued by what can be determined.

    See: http://tinyurl.com/6g2nn6k and

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_metal

    http://www.roswellproof.com/zimmerman.html

    By Blogger stevesaw, at Saturday, January 29, 2011  

  • Steve wrote: "Don, have you tried to locate La Paz’s archives yourself or tried to call any of his now adult children to find out about same?"

    No. Having read that his files were destroyed by family members (his wife?), I thought it very likely true, at least for the timeframe of interest to me.

    Do you recall any witnesses among the ranchers referring to anyone like him? I don't.

    If I wanted to know where La Paz was in September 1947, I'd be looking at White Sands, Palomar, his university, and the various professional organizations he had a membership -- conferences etc. Newspapers, as well.

    I don't know where the story was first told. Is there an interview with Rickett that is the source for the story? According to the authors of Witness to Roswell, their story came from "personal interviews". Unless there is a transcript or tape of the interviews available, I can only say (yet again): Information that cannot be accessed might as well not exist.

    So, I have no idea what Rickett actually said.



    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, January 30, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home