Roswell debris tested - - Not from Earth

Originally posted by GORGANTHIUM
The military would have gone over that same area with metal detectors many times

Just why do you think that? Different people cannot even agree on the exact location of the crash site!

Thank you, Thestargateisreal, and Liejunkie01 for your contributions of information about welding. I looked through some welding supply catalogs, too. I found that the simple alloy AA4043, which is ~95% aluminum and ~5% silicon, was, in all cases, the only 4xxx series (Aluminum-Silicon) alloy offered for sale. I understand that alloys with from at least as low as .6% silicon, up through 21.5 % exist, and that other metals may be present in some alloys, too. A good example of this is the alloy AA4032 with 85% aluminum, 12.5% silicon, .9% copper, 1% magnesium, and .9% nickel. This is too high in silicon, though, to be a good match for the Roswell metal. I looked at the specifications of 'Coreshield 40' but find that it is a low alloy steel, with only 1.3% aluminum, and .3% silicon. If anyone knows of a specific 4xxx series alloy with ~79% aluminum, 2% silicon, 1% magnesium, and so on, as in the analyses of the Roswell metal, I would be very interested to learn of it.

Curious.

The test results of the isotope ratios are within one half of one percent, but what is the statistical variation of the natural occurrence? Do these test results fall within one standard deviation... two, three?

I see the deviation on the graph, but not the standard deviation-- which makes the table meaningless (to me). I see (mostly) linear single-point plots, the points labeled by location-- that they are not exactly linear says the plots are averages for the locations, but we have been given no data behind them.

So,, perhaps, and for example, Is it possible that the graph is useful only in identifying where the manganese is likely mined if, and only if, the manufactures used only one source?

It occurs to me that an aluminum manufacturer using manganese from multiple sources might cause us to expect that have isotope fractionation plots falling anywhere on the graph; but only a single source of Manganese could make that graph useful.

reply to post by Ross 54


The link I provided was wire used for welding. The metal you will be welding would have no reason to be composed as the specimen. It's pretty likely that his so called "alien metal" is nothing more than slag from a person welding on farm equipment. Here is the undiluted composition of the wire I provided the link to, and how it relates to my current theory.

This is the composition of the wire, intended to weld low alloy/carbon steel.
Typical Undiluted Weld Metal Analysis
C 0.22 %
Mn 0.3 %
Si 0.3 %
P 0.012 %
S 0.007 %
Al 1.3 %

It's likely the type of welding wire or rod that anyone erecting repairs to a piece of farm equipment or anything else that's a "field repair" would use. The general shape of the metal in the photos looks like a piece of "Slag". When repairing anything in a remote location outside a shop excessive slag is often a problem, as most people doing this only need it to hold long enough to get back home to do a clean weld in a controlled area, or replace the broken part. Obviously the amounts of each metal in the wire itself would be considered a trade secret by most companies and probably varies. After being melted it could vary even more. You wanted an alloy made by man that exists with the same general composition as the one found, I've given you that and told you a much more likely scenario as to where this came from. As far as I'm concerned this guy just spent a lot of time on a piece of slag, or artfully made that piece in an attempt to hoax it.

EDIT: Here's a thought. What if someone had a bit of magnesium that they knew came from a meteorite, decided to take and mix and layer it into a slag pool of wire with a welder on their workbench, and hoax it as a fragment from a UFO? I can't seem to find any magnesium in anything welding or metal related. From what I know of Magnesium using it as a metal for a structure would be incredibly stupid. I don't think the other worldly component is even from the same source as the others, which appear to be welding materials.

I think I see what you're saying - - the proportions of the metals given in the 'Coreshield 40' analysis is supposed to be similar to that in the Roswell metal - - is that it? Not very similar though, it seems to me. 'Coreshield 40'. with 1.3 % aluminum, and .3% silicon has a relative ratio of abundance of ~4.33 to 1. The Roswell metal, with 89% aluminum and 2 % silicon has a ratio of ~ 44.5 to 1. Or do I still misunderstand you? Ross

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
EDIT: Here's a thought. What if someone had a bit of magnesium that they knew came from a meteorite, decided to take and mix and layer it into a slag pool of wire with a welder on their workbench, and hoax it as a fragment from a UFO? I can't seem to find any magnesium in anything welding or metal related. From what I know of Magnesium using it as a metal for a structure would be incredibly stupid. I don't think the other worldly component is even from the same source as the others, which appear to be welding materials.

That seems to be a stretch.

The main problem I have with the OP's article is that depending on what you are using for your baseline for "Normal Ratios of Magnesium Isotopes Found in Natural Earth Magnesium", the sample tested could be said to fall well within the values for a "Normal" Earthly sample of a alloy.

Why did the lab use the "Expected Magnesium Isotope Ratios" that they did? Why do they seem to ignore other accepted values of this ratio -- values that suggest that the sample could have been made on Earth? Values such as this:
The Berkeley Laboratory Isotopes Project

The ratios used by the lab Mr. Kimbler hired seem to be inconsistent with what I have read to be the expected ratios. The test results seem inconclusive, so why did they (according to the title of the article) come to the conclusion that they did?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


No more of a stretch than thinking this thing came from a spacecraft. I'm done discussing this. An expert will debunk this soon enough. It's a load of crap. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink".

Yes Ross you still misunderstand me. You're going to keep misunderstanding because you want to find a fragment to an alien spaceship. Which is exactly why this guy has made this hoax.

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

No more of a stretch than thinking this thing came from a spacecraft.

Those aren't the only two possible scenarios here ("hoax" or "alien")

I'm saying it's not a hoax -- NOR is it conclusively a piece of aluminum-not-made-on-Earth.

I'm saying that the values of the ratio of Mg isotopes in the aluminum alloy that was tested COULD BE consistent with earthly aluminum, depending on the value used for the isotopic ratio for Mg found on Earth.

i.e., it's not necessarily a hoax, and could easily be a piece of normal aluminum. The results of the test seemed extremely inconclusive to me -- too inconclusive to make the claims that they did.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


No test can really be too conclusive about anything on the subatomic level anyways. It's so easy to mess that up it's not even funny. If I remember my high school science correctly it's very difficult to count any of that stuff on the subatomic level.

I like ATS so I figure I should chime in and set the record at least partially straight. I'm the one that discovered the artifacts, Frank Kimbler. The media over-sensationalized the discovery. There is no confirmation only some test results that seem to indicate the material might be off- world. Only one isotope test was done and the results are a little odd, because the error factor was very high .5% for two of the isotopes. The .5 % is right at the upper and lower maximum error of the analytical equipment. One test does not make an alien space craft nor is it proof or confirmation that the material is extraterrestrial in origin. It will require several more tests to prove confirmation of anything. The first two sets of analysis came from New Mextico Tech and the University of New Mexico. Both of those tests done via microprobe indicated the material was very close to 6070 alluminum alloy which is not found in foil form, it is used for construction of large structures like buildings and ships. The silicon level was slightly over 1%. Please keep in mind that silicon is very abundant on Earth and the high silicon values might be from silicon contamination on the surface of the metals in the form of clay. The lab that did the isotopes used GDMS and also ran the same elements as the microprobe. The silicon levels were 5 times less than the microprobe values. Since the silicon was less then the alloy was now closer to 3004 aluminum alloy.
A 3004 alloy is used extensively in the manufacture of beverage cans and cookware pots and pans. The composition for the AH-1 specimen is not exact to 3004 and there are a few common elements that should be present but are not or extremely low, those elements are zinc and gallium.

Some food for thought.

1. There is a mention from a good source (Wilbert Smith 1962 ) in reference to UFOs " One portion of aluminum as hard as quartz. It could only be broken for analysis by grinding. Yet composition seemed similar to standard kitchen pots." Note the alloy I mentioned above as 3004 and what it is used for. Check out this link www.presidentialufo.com...

2. Tempers of aluminum are reset at temperatures close to its melting point which is lower than the temperature of brush fires and forest fires. The Brazel debris field has been burned, maybe more than once, and it was a controlled burned as indicated by satellite images. The temper of the aluminum and it metallurgical properties could have been changed.

The material I have could be nothing more than an aluminum can or it could be something more exotic and that determination depends on more testing. There is no such thing as exotic unknown elements. Our elements are the same elements that make up the rest of our galaxy. Alien alloys may be the same alloys we have with only a difference in metallurgy.

Remember-- I was the one who said it was a beer can! Way back on page three or so! I really did look up the content of the alloy and matched it with beer cans-- but did any one comment? Nooooo! Thought I was being flippant, didn't ya?

Well then...

Given a lack of necessary information to discuss within the context of that article from the OP, please allow me to suck the fun right out of this:

Here's the quote from the Roswell Paper, with which many are familiar:

The intelligence office of the 509th Bombardment group at Roswell Army Field announced at noon today, that the field has come into possession of a flying saucer. According to information released by the department, over authority of Maj.J. A. Marcel, intelligence officer, the disk was recovered on a ranch in the Roswell vicinity, after an unidentified rancher had notified Sheriff Geo. Wilcox, here, that he had found the instrument on his premises. Major Marcel and a detail from his department went to the ranch and recovered the disk, it was stated.

Exciting!

So, what do we imagine this "detail" accompanying the Major to be? Trucks with lifting devices, several platoons with metal detectors? But not this (same paper, different article-- interview with Bazel):

and Maj. Jesse A. Marcel and a man in plain clothes accompanied him home, where they picked up the rest of the pieces of the "disk" and went to his home to try to reconstruct it.

Yep, one man.

And the "disk" debris... What do we imagine? Lots of space age metal-- high tech aerospace technology from which we have built our own modern aircraft by reverse engineering? But not this:

Brazel related that on June 14 he and an 8-year old son, Vernon, were about 7 or 8 miles from the ranch house of the J. B. Foster ranch, which he operates, when they came upon a large area of bright wreckage made up on rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks.

Yep, sticks.

The eye-witness, surly they confirm that the craft was large enough to hold at least three alien bodies-- even if they didn't see the bodies, right? But then there is this:

Brazel said that he did not see it fall from the sky and did not see it before it was torn up, so he did not know the size or shape it might have been, but he thought it might have been about as large as a table top.

Okay, so maybe the bodies were GI Joe and Barbie sized.

But... All those reports of flatbed trucks carting off the spacecraft to Area 51, where a special hanger was built to house them, right?

When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds.

We search for metal so as to see if we can identify alien origin, just as the article the OP has us read, so this all sound science, right? Ah, but then there is this:

There was no sign of any metal in the area which might have been used for an engine and no sign of any propellers of any kind, although at least one paper fin had been glued onto some of the tinfoil.

Oh my goodness-- all the technology we have created just to get to the Moon and these clever little aliens have accomplished all their glorious feats using the same technology as is found in my childhood kites.

So... Are we not discussing whether or not the beer-can fragments are extraterrestrial? I mean, that would be really cool if we were visited by aliens AND we learn they like beer; but any advanced civilization capable of interplanetary travel will certainly have learned that beer is only properly consumed from a bottle.

Oh wait! That is what they are after-- they come to take our beer technology! This my friends, is a cause for us to rally together-- we must stop this evil invasion! No wonder the government has covered it up! Imagine the panic! (Okay, that part was flippant!)

I like ATS so I figure I should chime in and set the record at least partially straight. I'm the one that discovered the artifacts, Frank Kimbler. The media over-sensationalized the discovery. There is no confirmation only some test results that seem to indicate the material might be off- world. Only one isotope test was done and the results are a little odd, because the error factor was very high .5% for two of the isotopes. The .5 % is right at the upper and lower maximum error of the analytical equipment. One test does not make an alien space craft nor is it proof or confirmation that the material is extraterrestrial in origin. It will require several more tests to prove confirmation of anything. The first two sets of analysis came from New Mextico Tech and the University of New Mexico. Both of those tests done via microprobe indicated the material was very close to 6070 alluminum alloy which is not found in foil form, it is used for construction of large structures like buildings and ships. The silicon level was slightly over 1%. Please keep in mind that silicon is very abundant on Earth and the high silicon values might be from silicon contamination on the surface of the metals in the form of clay. The lab that did the isotopes used GDMS and also ran the same elements as the microprobe. The silicon levels were 5 times less than the microprobe values. Since the silicon was less then the alloy was now closer to 3004 aluminum alloy.
A 3004 alloy is used extensively in the manufacture of beverage cans and cookware pots and pans. The composition for the AH-1 specimen is not exact to 3004 and there are a few common elements that should be present but are not or extremely low, those elements are zinc and gallium.

Some food for thought.

1. There is a mention from a good source (Wilbert Smith 1962 ) in reference to UFOs " One portion of aluminum as hard as quartz. It could only be broken for analysis by grinding. Yet composition seemed similar to standard kitchen pots." Note the alloy I mentioned above as 3004 and what it is used for. Check out this link www.presidentialufo.com...

2. Tempers of aluminum are reset at temperatures close to its melting point which is lower than the temperature of brush fires and forest fires. The Brazel debris field has been burned, maybe more than once, and it was a controlled burned as indicated by satellite images. The temper of the aluminum and it metallurgical properties could have been changed.

The material I have could be nothing more than an aluminum can or it could be something more exotic and that determination depends on more testing. There is no such thing as exotic unknown elements. Our elements are the same elements that make up the rest of our galaxy. Alien alloys may be the same alloys we have with only a difference in metallurgy.

Frank Kimbler has correctly treated the question of the terrestrial or extraterrestrial status of the metal fragments he discovered as one to be settled by scientific tests. He intends to see these tests made in the very near future. Speculations about what he believes, or wishes to discover, or how he could have acted deceitfully, or carelessly, have no bearing on the results of scientific tests. Neither do 'predictions' about what will be found by these tests, not yet performed, or musings about their reliability, which is already long established. Ross

We need debunkers because they help to sometimes set the record straight for many things. The story from OM was over sentionalized and there is no positive confirmation, only maybe's and some speculation. Please look through the post on the subject and find my reply because I'm the one that found the material. One isotope test with an error factor at the upper limit of the equipment and using old Mg isotope values from the 1960's as a baseline does not make for an alien space craft. If you plot the as observed data from the lab then the isotope values are certainly off. If you figure in the error factor for two of the isotopes at the max error possibe then the values are dead on for normal earthly things using the old isotope standard values as a baseline. It is a little odd for one value to be dead on and the other two to be exactly .5 % off, which is the maximum error for the equipment.

This is a great post and I sincrely appreciate the debunkers, the analytical minded, the odd special people with lots of imagination and the scientists that have looked at the Open Minds article on the Roswell metal artifacts. Up until the article release, and the postings on ATS, few if any in the UFO community bothered to look at what I found. Frank Kimbler the person who found the metal fragments.

reply to post by ICAND

Thanks for responding, Mr. Kimbler.

I may have implicated in former posts that it was you who over-sensationalized this finding, and I apologize. I have been clarifying in my later posts that I think it is the article's author -- Alejandro Rojas -- who has over-sensationalized this.

Obviously, this sample should have every opportunity to be tested and retested, by like you said, the original test was very inconclusive, partly because the results were within -- albeit at the upper limits of -- the margin of error, plus it seemed that the lab (or whoever it was that prepared this table):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7660029aac46.jpg[/atsimg]table excerpted from the OP's article

...used values for "Abundance - Natural" that are in question.

As I said earlier, I'm not saying this is DEFINITELY earth-manufactured aluminum, but after reviewing the data and doing a little research on the subject of Magnesium isotopes, I just don't see how the author of the OP's article could say conclusively that it was NOT Earth-manufactured aluminum.

The research I did was not difficult, which makes me wonder why Mr. Rojas did not do the same research and 'due diligence' before writing his article. If he did the research, he should have found reasons to at least question the conclusions he reached in the article.

Again, thank you for your time, Mr. Kimbler, and good luck finding definitive answers -- whatever that answer is. I don't know what the labs rules are on the reports they write, but I would like to see the complete report of the second lab test -- and the first, for that matter -- if possible.

Ya know, I said during the Roswell Panel, during my discussion of the artifacts I found, that it was either mister ranchers beer can or it might be a fragment from an alien space craft. Kevin Randle who was sitting next to me said 'or maybe its an alien beer can". I loved it and laughed. I have 15 fragments and only one has been looked at (AH-1) which stands for Ant Hill 1, which is where it was found. In appearance there may be 3 different types of alloys or some it may have weathered different. More testing certainly needs to be done. Keep an open mind.
The media really over sensationized what was found. As far as the composition goes micropobe average says 6070 alloy which is not a can, Bigelow's lab said 5000 series alloy and that was dead wrong, the GDMS work says 3004, but they also burned through a high silicon layer, possible surface contamination, but the material does appear to be layered. A metallurgist needs to look at this stuff. Frank Kimbler

I have always said that the material I found is either mister ranchers beer can or it might be something a little more exotic and that more testing is needed. You have to understand that the debris field is fairly remote and there is little if any evidence out there indicating campers. The metal fragments are very small and they are all buried an inch or two deep. The fragments are scattered over a large area. Most of the fragments were associated with either ant hills or animal burrows suggesting they came from even deeper down. I have lots of unanswered questions like; How did shreded alumunium alloy get out to such a remote site and scattered over
a fairly large area . Could it have been salted (placed there by others) ? Why does some of the material appear as if it went through an explosion complete with micro holes punched all the way through by a high speed projectiles, Why does some of the material appear layered? This stuff needs more work in order to make confirmation claims and the media was certainly over sensational.

Thank you, Mr. Kimbler, for giving of your time and efforts to clarify this matter. I listened to your entire interview, and read the entire article on Openminds. I must say I received from these a somewhat different impression of the situation than the one you make here. That's an odd thing about the silicon. I'd have assumed that a metal sample would be at least lightly cleaned, so as to remove dirt, before testing. I was also surprised to learn that a certified lab would use outmoded element abundance figures from several decades ago, as you report. One never knows, I guess. The resemblance of your find to the common 3004 aluminum alloy is interesting, but as you state, there are those odd differences, too; these seem even more interesting. Hope you have good luck in your pursuit of the facts behind these metal fragments. Ross

Originally posted by ICAND
Ya know, I said during the Roswell Panel, during my discussion of the artifacts I found, that it was either mister ranchers beer can or it might be a fragment from an alien space craft. Kevin Randle who was sitting next to me said 'or maybe its an alien beer can". I loved it and laughed. I have 15 fragments and only one has been looked at (AH-1) which stands for Ant Hill 1, which is where it was found. In appearance there may be 3 different types of alloys or some it may have weathered different. More testing certainly needs to be done. Keep an open mind.
The media really over sensationized what was found. As far as the composition goes micropobe average says 6070 alloy which is not a can, Bigelow's lab said 5000 series alloy and that was dead wrong, the GDMS work says 3004, but they also burned through a high silicon layer, possible surface contamination, but the material does appear to be layered. A metallurgist needs to look at this stuff. Frank Kimbler

Five things (other than this has been entirely enjoyable-- especially with the surprise appearance of the researcher!):

1.) I don't know anything about metallurgy (but I still think I'm on to something about mixed sources for the manganese providing the answer the why the observed variance)-- I just compared it to the (of all things!) the Wikipedia article on Manganese. It has this neat little table about the percentage of the various elements in various types of aluminum alloys. The 3000 series seemed the best fit, and so the beer can concept was the result (well, that and any loose metal I have ever stumbled across in the desert has always been a beer can).

2) Early on in this, others have pointed out the sensationalizing seems to have come from the writer-- not the researcher. That you are looking... is good. Most, I think, recognize the difference. I wouldn't be surprised if the writer didn't chose the headline. I used to write for a newspaper, and was always surprised at the headline chosen by my editor.

3) It was driving me nuts trying to come up with the meaning of AH-1!

4) Your beer can story just made my night!

5) I don't think I'm a debunker-- I like testing theories and researching to do that. My bias starts with the improbability for other intelligent life on other planets (apologies to Carl Sagan, but his use of statistics was appallingly poor in that regard-- we do not get to add probabilities-- we multiply them and so they always get smaller with each variable factor considered).

But, dang it all, I was working on a theory that the "disk" was a fuel tank, rocket motor bell, or combustion chamber from a V-2 or Hermes, but the eye-witness accounts killed my own favorite theory. Even so, If I ever get the chance, I want to go poke around as you did.

Well, if it had to be anything, I like the idea that it is beer related.

Many of the figures in the analysis of the Roswell metal are reported to be similar to those for the common aluminum alloy 3004. There are differences, though, we're told. Its rather like a common experience, here in this part of Northern California: seeing a small, long eared animal, in the wildlands, that hops along and has the general shape of rabbit. Well, if it hops like a rabbit and looks like a rabbit, it must be a rabbit, right? Wrong! That 'rabbit' is very likely to actually be a hare. If examined closely enough the differences become apparent. Hares are common here, but the only rabbits one sees are people's pets, and generally confined to their yards or homes. Closely examined, the Roswell metal appears unusual in several respects. An example of this is a deficiency of manganese. Sources agree that this appears in alloy 3004 in the range of 1 to 1.5 percent. The Roswell metal is apparently deficient from even the lower figure by nearly 50%. Two more examples - - typical 3004 values for iron and zinc are .7%, and .25%, respectively. The Roswell metal reportedly has only about one quarter as much iron as that, and around one eight as much zinc. So, have we, in the Roswell metal, a domestic 'rabbit' or a wild 'hare'? We shall see... Ross