People want physical proof.. well here is my recollection of physical proof

obviously you know more than i do in this field

but i don't see why new mexico tech would be a fluke.. or the paper it was published on that's supported by nasa..

regardless of what the case may be, i know it's not a piece of wood or rock.. and this man's genuity displayed on that program i watched several years ago is almost enough to prove it for me..

but if a man is going to invest over 80,000 for various data analysis to figure out what the object is.. also helps prove to me that it isn't a piece of wood or rock either..

The object def looks artificial, and does not look like it was made naturally.

Was this object flying around or did it just drop onto earth?

Its very intriguing but also very confusing.

What is an MIT?

I know about THE MIT, so I am confused by your acronym.

Originally posted by Malakai
but if a man is going to invest over 80,000 for various data analysis to figure out what the object is.. also helps prove to me that it isn't a piece of wood or rock either..

if he spent over 80,000 then i am assuming that there must be more reports and evidence than the one you have posted.

a single report costing 80,000 wouldn't make mistake such as the one i have pointed out

perhaps someone could find and post some more results that this guy financed, there must be more out there for that amount of money.

i'm not saying it definitely isn't extraterrestrial, just that the report seems a bit phoney

my mistake.. i retract that past statement due to my hazy recollection..

it was actually new mexico tech which did the follow up on the object..

the initial facility he took it to, which was in the 80s.. is the one i'm trying to figure out, because they're the ones that said it was extraterrestrial, then later took back that statement..

and from what i remember, it was a pretty well known.. wish i had more information

and... the object fell from the sky, the man described seeing two parallel blue beams in the sky, something going towards it, then something dropping from it.. shortly after that, those beams disappearing.


and for the other poster.. are you SURE there aren't any exceptions to doing cuts in a vickers hardness test? especially for a case like this?

and for the alloy level, due to it being extraterrestrial in origin.. could it not be that the irregular alloy level is due to it not being from this planet?

again, i don't know particularly anything of value in this field.. so i'm just asking questions

he didn't spend 80,000 on just that one test.. excuse me for not elaborating

but yes, through out his years, from him finding it in 85, to now.. he's invested over that much with various facilities trying to figure out what it is..

the other reason i don't think it's phony is because the history channel posted those exact paper readings i'm pretty sure.. if not, ones closely resembling them.. only thing i know is that tech facilities did in fact analyze this.

Originally posted by Malakai
and for the other poster.. are you SURE there aren't any exceptions to doing cuts in a vickers hardness test? especially for a case like this?

and for the alloy level, due to it being extraterrestrial in origin.. could it not be that the irregular alloy level is due to it not being from this planet?

a vickers hardness test involves a diamond tip being pressed into a surface of the test subject to create an indentation which is roughly quare. The diagonal lines of this square are then measured and checked against calibration tables to come up with the hardness reading.

there is no cutting involved, just a diamond tipped tool being pushed into the material

and with the object being 85% aluminium i can't see the inclusion of other elements in the material's makeup causing the hardness to drop by over 100MPa when compared with other aluminium alloys

The problem with this piece of evidence is that it isn't very good. I read the entire account. Some labs said it resembled alloys as you would find on Mars. Other labs said this wasn't unusual at all. It's not like they found an absolutely strange metal no one has ever seen before: It's aluminum. It has no markings. It's melted from the looks of it. It's kind of equivalent to the current thread about a UFO buzzing a B2 bomber. The guy who posted said it was the greatest picture ever and definitive proof of the existence o UFOs! Not. It's blurry. You can barely see the purported object. It's a pretty poor picture. the standard of proof for this is pretty high these days, and marginal evidence doesn't quite cut it.

Basically I believe the guy, but it doesn't have sufficient bling to get him $10 million for it. Sorry. (really!)

how do you do a test??you drop on weight on the metal and measure the depth of penitration...

it says the piece of metel used had been cut from the object..a perpendicual cut and a horizontal cut..you must have a sample piece..

vickers hardness of 60 to 62 on the test..

the test is very credible and correct.

larry

[edit on 20-10-2007 by larryroyc]