Roswell debris tested - - Not from Earth

Originally posted by tetsuo
...The fact that 24^Mg was high isn't that big of a deal. The fact that 26^Mg was low isn't that big of a deal. What matters is that one is high AND the other is low. If they were both high, then the ratio would still be within acceptable, terrestrial limits...

Is this true?

I understand where your logic is coming from, and I was thinking about that myself when I read the data, but is that really how these things work? Does it really matter that one is high and one is low if both fall within the margin of error? Does one being high and one being low really make it likely that the sample is not terrestrial?

What evidence do you have that they both need to be consistently high or consistently low to fall within the margin for error?

The way I saw it, they were both exactly within the margin for error if the Abundance in Nature that they stated is used, and are even closer to nature if the other values for "Abundance in Nature" are used from the other sources I listed.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Manganese is what is confusing me too, as is the issue with 'foil'
Since all and sundry at the time talk about foil, it seems that some kind of foil was recovered, and both father and son talk about the bendy/unbendy foil, which seems to have no place in either the balloon official stories, or a debris field.
What Jesse Marcel was holding is clearly not a bendy foil, it is crumpled and beyond recovery shape.
On the other hand, neither a bendy foil, or a crumpled foil would be subject to a "mass debris" field by a simple earth collision, although some type of explosion might be a cause.
The fact that Marcel is holding a large piece of foil which is crumpled but goodly intact is a good pointer to there being no large or mass debris field at all, rather than a balloon taking all the rest for 'draggies' and ultimately a "mass debris" field.

reply to post by Ross 54

It is perfectly possible that aluminum alloys from other worlds resemble our own, in a general way.

It is also possible that it is (was) a military craft or experiment......

I guess that we need more information.....More tests......



I was reading the article for the margin of error as stated above.....I did'nt see it.....But then again the kids are running around all crazy and driving me crazy.

Have a good night/day.

S&F

reply to post by Ross 54


This is very important stuff. We can't "Deny Ignorance" when trigger happy editors pull threads before they even begin. Maybe the Staff of ATS should just take Red Bull break or something.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


It doesn't matter that any specific isotope of Magnesium is present in anomalous or normal levels. It matters how those levels relate to each other. It's like if you wanted to find out if your girlfriend was cheating on you. On its own, her staying the night out with 'friends' isn't that big of a deal. Accidentally finding text messages to some other dude isn't a big deal. Finding a dude's clothing in the house isn't that big of a deal (we all have friends). But when all three happen together, you might have a problem. Ok, that's a weird example, but I hope it makes sense >.< No, I did not just break up with my girlfriend lol

The margins of error are for the *observed* values, not the actual. The actual values are pretty much always the same, so long as the magnesium is of Earthly origin. Let's look at some more scientific data:

--24Mg
normal = 0.7899
normal range = 0.78958 - 0.79017
observed = 79.1 (+/- 0.5)

--25Mg
normal = 0.1000
normal range = 0.09996 - 0.10012
observed = 10.1 (+/- 0.5)

--26Mg
normal = 0.1101
normal range = 0.10987 - 0.11030
observed = 10.8 (+/- 0.5)

source - en.wikipedia.org...

So we see that the individual isotope observed values are actually ALL outliers. The +/- 0.5 just refers to the margin of error of the measuring tool/method. So we are pretty sure that they are all outliers/anomalous. Additionally, when we make ratios of the observed data points, that derivative ratio is even more of an outlier than the individual isotope levels.

Earlier in the thread, I read the data wrong and thought the +/- 0.5 margin of error was on the natural levels of Mg isotopes, not the observed values. There's a big difference. Instead of thinking the observed values are 100% correct, that the measuring tool and method was accurate and precise, and the natural levels of Mg isotopes are fairly variable, it is the natural levels and ratios of Mg isotopes which are quite regular and invariable, but the observed values which are susceptible to error. Thus why the dude who did the research said more tests are needed.

More tests give more data points, and depending on how close they are to the observed values we already have, we will be more and more confident that the observed values are correct. If they all agree, then that margin of error will go down and it will be undeniable that the material in question is of ET origin (somewhere along the manufacturing line). WHY it is ET in origin is a question we don't even need to bother with yet, in my opinion. Who the hell knows if it is even a piece of foil from the Roswell incident? We really don't know.

First things first - more tests.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Ever since WW2 the Americans' reputation for discovering and manufacturing alloys has been high (maybe thanks to Operation Paperclip (?)

My concern is that even if it's a hitherto unknown alloy, by the time it goes through peer review wherein they will supposedly establish some kind of norms for determining whether it can be manufactured on earth, by then the claims by those who WANT it to be extraterrestrial will see it as only they can. And once more the Roswell myth will be propagated. Because if it should happen to come from a mirage or stealth test lab, do you think the DOD would admit to it in any case? The chances of a test crash just outside the base between 1947 and now are certainly not zero.

I see it as only perpetuating what has always been. Unless, of course, there is disclosure.

Originally posted by tetsuo
First things first - more tests.

That's definitely true.

Another thing I know that is true is that the title of the article linked in the OP:

"Test Confirms Roswell Debris is not from Earth"

is sensationalistic and at all accurate. It seems the test confirmed nothing. Perhaps the results of test may have been vague enough to require more tests, but they confirmed nothing.

Originally posted by aboutface
...My concern is that even if it's a hitherto unknown alloy, by the time it goes through peer review wherein they will supposedly establish some kind of norms for determining whether it can be manufactured on earth, by then the claims by those who WANT it to be extraterrestrial will see it as only they can.

It's not an unknown alloy. It is a known alloy that is usually used in construction.

However, the magnesium in the alloy had ratios of isotopes that were perhaps slightly different than the ratios of magnesium isotopes one would find in naturally-occurring magnesium. They were only slightly different, and that difference perhaps could be explained by the test's margin of error. Or not.

The bottom line is that the test results were vague and inconclusive.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


My dad used to work with alloys and he used to say unknown alloys instead of undetermined ratios. I guess my mind was conjuring him up. Thanks for picking that up. I think we're in agreement.

I'm not aware of any known process by which manufacturing alloys can change the isotope (i.e. neutron count) in the metal. If that process does indeed exist, please enlighten me.

Furthermore, if the metal were say, part of a nuclear test where it was exposed to neutron radiation, you would expect it would have MORE neutrons. This sample has LESS neutrons. How?

Nice find, I think it's extremely interesting. What I'm seeing is the following:

- The sample's magnesium has significantly less neutrons than any Earth magnesium, indicating a non-terrestrial origin
- It is an alloy, seemingly ruling out a natural source such as a meteorite

So to me, someone that takes the bulk of the alien reports to indicate that aliens do exist, it seems very plausible that this is metal from the Roswell crash. To the die-hard skeptic, it's not a smoking gun but just an unknown anomaly that they don't care about, since they don't want to have to change their mind.

reply to post by Ross 54


Didn't I read this exact same argument concerning manganese content in aluminum found near the (alleged) Aurora, Texas crash site?

A few thoughts on the article...

* Manganese is used in manufacturing aluminum products-- provides galvanizing. All manganese is "extra terrestrial" in origin-- believed that (and other) element only forms naturally in stars and so from some ancient supernova.
* Wikipedia article on Manganese indicates that between .8 and 1.5 % Manganese is the normal for galvanized aluminum in beer cans-- exactly the percentages found in the samples. Oh... wait, maybe the article failed to mention that all of the elements found and in the those approximate percentages are what one expects to find in terrestrial aluminum alloys. Huh. I guess they just forgot to make note of that.
* What "witnesses"? Wasn't Brazel alone.
* A disturbed area with tin, aluminum and nails? Ever lived in the country? You pick a spot to use as your dump and burn your garbage there.
* How does a piece of land "face" in any direction, much less the the direction reported by witnesses?
* Brazel reported that he took what he found back to the house (or maybe it was his barn): One man tucks it under his arm, so how did we ever get this story to include military trucks transporting it (much less 3/4 mile long and few hundred feet wide)?
* I almost never lose a button-- when I do, it is when I'm changing clothes. So, three buttons were found at the same location-- at what seems to be a burn dump for the ranch. How about something really crazy: The rancher had insecticide all over his shirt after treating his livestock, and decided it was best to burn the shirt?
* If the aluminum fragments with manganese are suspected from being from outer space, why not the buttons, the nails and the tin?

My theory, based on the evidence, then, is obvious:

The buttons, nails, and tin were all placed at that location over the years by Brazel for burning. Unbeknownst to him, several alien teenagers had been out near there drinking beer and doing some innocent cow-tipping, but dinged up their spaceship when trying to fly home under the influence. Their alien Dad sent a saucer-wrecker the next morning and removed all traces of the the spacecraft-- except for the beer cans.

Originally posted by beauty from pain
reply to post by Thestargateisreal

 

I thought MgO was naturally occuring... either that or my entire high school lied to me.

It is never found on it's own in nature. It's found in minerals with other metals though. So yes it is naturally occurring, just not by itself. It needs human refinement to exist in a pure form on earth. Make sense?

Judging by the uneventful nature of the alloy itself (those elements are not very special) I'm of the belief that this is a mere coincidence and the alloy was manufactured on earth. I'm glad someone smarter than me read up on the Magnesium thing. I'm not very good with that niche of science and I thought that's what the information on Magnesium was saying but wasn't sure. Sounds like it may be rare, whether by coincidence or not is another story.

Originally posted by Observer99
...The sample's magnesium has significantly less neutrons than any Earth magnesium, indicating a non-terrestrial origin...

No. That's not accurate.

There are three known stable isotopes of Magnesium: 24^Mg, 25^Mg, and 26^Mg. ALL THREE of these isotopes are found in ALL naturally-occurring magnesium found on Earth, and are found in a ratio that is generally consistent for ALL naturally-occurring magnesium on Earth.

The ratios of those three stable isotopes in naturally-occurring magnesium found on Earth are as follows (according to the OP's article):

24^Mg = 78.6%
25^Mg = 10.1%
26^Mg = 11.3%

Therefore, all magnesium found naturally-occurring on Earth should be in these ratios of isotopes. Magnesium with a different ratio of these three isotopes is known only to exist in meteorites.

As I noted above, these naturally-occurring ratios are the values as listed by the OP's article. It should be noted that other reputable sources has the values of these ratios as slightly different. For example The Berkeley Laboratory Isotope project has these ratios as:

78.9%
10.0%
11.1%

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory has the ratios as:

78.70%
10.17%
11.13%

Both of these other sources have values that are very close to the values as listed by the OP, but a little different. I suppose these slight variations from laboratory to laboratory mean that measuring the ratios of isotopes of magnesium is NOT an exact science. meaning...

...There is a slight variation even in trying to agree upon what the ACTUAL ratio of these isotopes in magnesium found on Earth in nature.


Now, the OP's article said it tested the magnesium in the sample in question for the ratio of isotopes and found the following:

24^Mg = 79.1% [+/- 0.5%]
25^Mg = 10.1% [+/- 0.5%]
26^Mg = 10.8% [+/- 0.5%]

There is a slight difference in the ratio of 24^Mg isotope and the 26^Mg isotope measured in the sample when compared with the naturally occurring ratios. That's why the article in the OP was arguing that the magnesium isotope ratios seem off, and that's why they argue that it is not terrestrial in origin -- As I said above, magnesium with a different ratio of these three isotopes is known only to exist in meteorites.

HOWEVER, it should also be noted that these observed differences in the ratios of magnesium in the alloy sample ARE within the +/- 0.5% margin of error for this test -- i.e., 24^Mg was observed to be 0.5% more than the OP's value found in nature while 26^Mg was observed to be 0.5% less than nature.

That +/- 0.5% error listed by the testing agency in the OP's article, plus the fact that there are slight variations in the agreed-upon ration of these isotopes in naturally occurring Mg on Earth leads me to believe that the results of this test are NOT AT ALL conclusive.

edit on 7/14/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

(You have an open underline tag in your post ...)

The graph certainly didn't look like it was within the margin of error. You list 0.5% as the margin of error, and even assuming that's been correctly used here (additive as opposed to multiplicative), TWO of the isotopes are on the BLEEDING EDGE of the margin of error? And on opposite edges? It may be technically correct to say that is inconclusive, but it is not correct to act like it is something to be downplayed or ignored.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Aluminum as such is not found in a raw form, so a sample is going to display some manufacturing properties. Methods such as ion-exchange chromatography will show such properties. If aluminum is not made that way, it begs the question "Where is it from?"

Oh well... then it must be from outer space!

Really...on a supposed UFO crash site, the OP's assertion is not that way out of line.

Sure it is, and it's a disgrace to the notion of UFO research to suggest that a small piece of a (known) version of aluminum, in the desert, decades after the reported crash could be extraterrestrial in origin.

It could be bits from an aluminum cookware set designed for camping, left in the fire too long decades ago.

Or you could actually be from outer space and are trying your best to use unscientific methods to derail any topic on this issue. Your conception of aluminum from a campfire is a fallacy as you have no proof that this is the case and are engaging in speculation and contempt of the OP to insist on your point of view.

You just engaged in an unprofessional attempt to shoot down a poster, showing your personal agenda in this area. YOU ARE THE GUY IN CHARGE OF ATS! Why say anything? Because you do have a reason to spread disbelief and in the end I will be banned, but your theory is hogwash and you know it.

You must be from outer space or an extra dimensional plain of existence, because your mentality is out of this world.

What an embarrassment to ATS. A campfire? Really? You know better and you constantly chide people for the exact same behavior. There are easier ways to shoot down a post, and you just simply used the path of least resistance to do so. What a waste of text that simply shows that you have a bad attitude to anything you don't agree with.

No one has the courage to just tell you this, you think you are a god amongst men, but you fall just like everyone else. Good bye.

reply to post by Observer99

It's NOT only the margin of error.

It's also the fact that there seems to be no agreed-upon value for the ratios of this isotope that should be found in naturally-occurring Earth-found Magnesium. Sure -- all of these values only vary slightly -- but so did the ratios value of the sample in question.

here are two sources with slightly varied values (which also vary from the values in the OP):

Berkeley Laboratory Isotope Project

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

In the second paragraph of this pdf file, there are two more ratios that vary from the ones I listed and from each other:
Absolute Isotopic Abundance Ratios and Atomic
Weight of Magnesium (Note: links directly to a pdf file)


This article states that the ratio may vary slightly from sample to sample, depending on the terrestrial source of that sample (i.e., where it is from):
ku-dk.academia.edu...

and another article about how the ratios found in natural Mg may slightly vary:
adsabs.harvard.edu...

Here is yet ANOTHER article from the National Standards that says the measured ratios of Mg isotopes may slightly vary:
pubs.rsc.org...


The bottom line is that the aluminum sample in question from the OP's article ACTUALLY IS consistent with some measured values of the isotopic ratios of naturally-occurring Mg, just not the values used by that particular lab (and even that was consistent, within the margin of error).

The fact that the measured isotopic ratio of magnesium is KNOWN to vary enough to be consistent with the sample in question was seemingly ignored by the article in the OP.

all metals are given a chemical tag
so if stolen they can be given back
to the rightful owners

i deliver to carry lead and tin from
the lead works at chester
thats how i know

so if its got no tag then who knows

Originally posted by philware
all metals are given a chemical tag
so if stolen they can be given back
to the rightful owners

i deliver to carry lead and tin from
the lead works at chester
thats how i know

so if its got no tag then who knows

Was this the case in 1947?

reply to post by Ross 54


I mentioned this yesterday as well in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... great find!

I really would like to see how this is going to end. I think it's rather strange though that there are still pieces of metal on the crash site. Wouldn't it be cleaned up already?

S&F