Larry Cekander presents

THE BOB WHITE LEGACY

The presumption that the UFO phenomenon MUST be validated by the appearance of unearthly alloys or materials is a principle we find no reason to embrace. The components of a terrestrial planet orbiting a star 500 light years away are likely very similar to our earth’s. And a race building a physical spacecraft there would likely use the same alloys and metals we would use.

Owner UFO HARD EVIDENCE LLC

Museum of the Unexplained Aerial Anomalies Research Team

Author, UFO Physical Trace Researcher, Musician, Fate Magazine Contributor, Master Mechanic,

Machinist/Metal fabrication

Larry Cekander has been involved with the paranormal research and physical trace UFO cases since 1996 when his friend Bob White, a former musician, actor and movie stuntman related a story to him about a UFO encounter in 1985 in Colorado that he had. He stated he recovered an artifact from that encounter and now that he was retired from the entertainment industry he wanted to try and find out what he had. Cekander examined the mental tear drop shaped object and after seeing the object new it was from no normal foundry process he was familiar with. This was the start of a 21 year journey of government lies, cover-up and deceit to rival any movie plot ever dreamed up in Hollywood. Since that red letter day in his life he has followed the leads, done the tests at the best labs and universities in the country and have scientific data showing OFF EARTH origins of the object recovered by Mr White. The object is extraterrestrial in origin and it is a an alloy aluminum made by a planned process. It matches no known aluminum we make on our planet today or in 1985 when it was recovered.

The Bob White Artifact is the ROSETTA STONE of UFO physical evidence. We now have case’s connecting the White artifact with 5 other UFO case studies with physical trace evidence left behind. The elemental content matches up are very close in all cases. They include the Rendlesham Forest/ Brentwaters UFO incident in December 1980. We had a sample tested and the elements are almost exact. The Bennie Foggins case, almost perfect match in elements and percentage. Ed’s metal again the same basic percentage’s. UFO investigator Chuck Wade in New Mexico has recovered physical evidence and his testing shows basic matches to the case studies listed with their elements. We have documented that the metals recovered match no known earth made alloys. All our claims have rock solid science documentation from accredited labs and universities.

IS IT ALIEN IN ORIGIN? WE DON’T KNOW THAT.

IS IT EXTRTERRESTIAL IN ORIGIN. ABSOLUTELY. WHO MADE IT, HOW IT WAS FORMED AND FOR WHAT REASON IT WAS MADE ARE THE QUESTIONS. WE STILL SEEK THOSE ANSWERS.

UFO HARD EVIDENCE LLC

COME DOWN AND SEE US AT THE CONFERENCE IN APRIL. WE WILL HAVE EXTRATERRESTRIAL ARTIFACTS ON DISPLAY RECOVERED FROM UFO ENCOUNTERS. THIS ISN’T SCIENCE FICTION. WE HAVE DOCUMENTED SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROVING THE ORIGINS OF THESE ARTIFACTS AND IT IS OF EARTH AND THEY ARE MANUFACTURED FOR A PURPOSE.
WHAT BOB WHITE SAW THAT NIGHT IN COLORADO.
DECLASSIFIED FILE SHOWING OBJECT RECOVERED IN DENMARK IN 1947 SHAPED EXACTLY LIKE ARTIFACT RECOVERED LIKE BOB WHITE IN COLORADO IN 1985.

THESE RESULTS ON BREAKDOWN OF ELEMENTS ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE BOB WHITE ARTIFACT IN MATCH.

Microstructural Analysis of Samples Received from Bennie Foggin

R.Olson, L. Martins, M. Topolski

Project Notes

We received samples of aluminum from Bennie Foggin labelled “Ohio Ed’s metal sample” (hereafter labelled SM006) and “Rendlesham Forest Sample” (hereafter labelled SM007). The Ed’s metal sample was a small chunk less than about 1 cubic centimeter. The Rendlesham sample was a collection of relatively fine shavings with size on the order of 1-mm. We have no knowledge of the history of Ed’s metal specimen. We were well aware of the Rendlesham story given its significant media exposure over the last couple of decades, but have no knowledge of this particular sample or how it was collected.

Specimen Notes

Samples were mounted in epoxy, initially ground using SiC paper to reveal a cross-section of the microstructure, then polished using water-based diamond suspensions and a Buehler automatic polishing wheel. Samples were then cleaned using ethanol in an ultrasonic bath and coated with a conductive coating of Au-Pd to prepare for analysis via Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy. Samples were analysed using a Tescan Vega 3 SEM equipped with an Oxford XMax-N EDS. All images were captured in backscatter mode.

Results and Discussion

The analytical results for all spectra are included in two summary tables below. The first is provided in weight percent, the second in atomic percent. The first seven spectra (1–7) pertain to Ed’s metal analyses, and the final ten spectra (8–17) pertain to the Rendlesham analyses.

Ed’s metal

Figure 1 shows a low magnification image of the surface prepared for analysis. Sites A and B were analyzed in detail. Figure 2 is a close-up of site A, where a large section of the alloy was scanned by EDS to obtain an estimate of the average composition. This material has a fairly simple composition. The relatively low amount of silicon is likely the result of impurity, not an intentional addition. It is difficult to process aluminum (Al) with silicon (Si) and iron (Fe) contents below about 0.4 wt%. We did not see Fe at this level in spectrum 1, but did pick up a precipitate in spectrum 3 with a high Fe content, so it could be we simply did not pick up the trace Fe in spectrum 1. The magnesium (Mg) concentration of 0.35 wt% is likely an intentional addition. Mg is a very common additive in Al alloy. A small amount of oxygen (O) was pick up, likely trace amounts of oxides in the alloy resulting from processing issues. The only other element we detected at this level was silver (Ag), which is a very unusual component. Historically, Ag is associated with copper (Cu) based alloys of Al. Al-Cu alloys were highly used in WWII for aircraft, but it was discovered they suffered from stress corrosion. Ag was then used to enhance the stress corrosion resistance of these alloys. It also improves high temperature properties. We do not know what role silver might play in non-Cu bearing alloys. At a level of 1.06 wt %, this was likely added to the metal.

Figure 3 is a close-up on one of the main precipitates we observed. It also shows the location of an EDS scan of the Al matrix, plus location of where we analysed the precipitate. Note the Ag is found in the matrix material again at a level of 1.30 wt%, so it is homogenized with the Al. This suggests the Ag was added at the melt stage. In conventional Al making processes, this would be a relatively expensive step, so it is likely an intentional addition. The Mg is again present at 0.36 wt%. The precipitate shows high level of Si and Fe, likely there due to trace levels of these elements in the alloy.

Figure 4 is another analysis from site B with a different type of precipitate. Spectrum 4 again shows the Mg, but we did not pick up the Ag. There is a small amount of porosity present here and we see evidence of some type of oxide containing mostly Al with Na, Mg, Si, Cl and Ca, likely an aluminum oxide impurity that caused the porosity.

Figure 5 shows a couple other precipitates at site B. Spectrum 6 has a high oxygen content, likely an oxide impurity. Spectrum 7 has high Si and Fe content similar to precipitate observed in Figure 3, but picked up a little Ag.

Overall, we can say this specimen is not composed of a common aluminum alloy. The Ag and Mg appear to be intentionally added, whereas the Si and Fe contents are likely at impurity levels. There is also the evidence of some oxide impurities likely introduced during processing.

Rendlesham Forest

Figure 6 is a low magnification image of the cross-section of two as-received shavings. Some porosity is present, but we do not know if these were a result of mechanical and/or thermal stresses induced during the formation of these shavings, or were present in an original component from which these shavings originated. Subsequent images represent images taken from Sites A and B.

Figure 7 is a higher magnification image of Site A. The enclosed area in Figure 7 represents the area used to measure the average composition of the alloy. The Si content is relatively high at 19.47%, suggesting this alloy might have been used for casting. The Fe content is at a typical level for trace impurity. Mg and Cu levels are likely due to addition, but could be impurities.

Figure 8 is a higher magnification image of Site A revealing details of precipitates. Spectrum 9 shows results of the Al matrix, low level of Mg at 0.22 wt% and Si at 1.37 wt%. Spectrum 10 shows results of bright precipitate containing high levels of Si and Fe, but also smaller amounts of Mn and Cr. Another interesting feature of this microstructure is the slightly lighter regions dispersed through the metal matrix, as indicated by the spot denoted Spectrum 12. These are regions of Si metal contained within the Al metal matrix. It appears these regions also contain a lot of porosity, likely a result of how the silicon solidifies within the aluminum matrix as the material cools.

Figure 9 shows a close up of Site B, where we again see high concentration of Si and small amounts of Fe and Cu, similar to results found in Figure 7. But here we also see evidence of Ag again? This is confirmed in Spectrum 14 shown in Figure 10. The composition of the brighter precipitates (Spectra 15 and 16) show similar high concentration of Si and Fe with smaller amount of Fe. The composition of lighter regions represented by Spectrum 17 confirms silicon metal within aluminum matrix.

Overall we can also say this metal alloy does not represent a common aluminum alloy. The high silicon content suggests this material was used to generate a casting, as high silicon is often used to accomplish this (4000 series alloys). None we know of use Ag in any capacity.

Regarding the use of Ag, we did uncover an Apr 2010 article on the web entitled “Al-Cu-Mg-Ag Alloys” discussing research interest in this system for use in aerospace applications.

www.totalmateria.com/page.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&site+ktn&NM=240

Although Ed’s metal and Rendlesham samples are quite different, the fact we are picking up Ag in both samples, an unusual component, begs the questions,

Is Ed’s metal and Rendlesham connected in some way?

Is there a possibility for Ag contamination?

We do not think Ag contamination was a possibility in our lab, and took a very close look at Ag peaks in the spectra, so are fairly sure about the results.

MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY XRD REPORT 1ST DRAFT

March 9th 2009

Bob White’s Unknown Aluminum Alloy XRD and Micro X-Ray Anaysis Report.

We were given a 7 gram piece of unknown aluminum alloy and ran an XRD and a Micro X-Ray analysis test on it. The piece came off a much larger mass of approximately 1 kilogram. The mass was observed by Mr Bob White to have fallen from the sky after being ejected from an unknown craft. I compared this alloy to known aircraft aluminum alloy 7075 and aluminum welding material 4043. The original piece is some kind of manufactured cast aluminun and not a broken weld. It had an unusual feathered texture to it, which is something I have never seen before. My X-ray microanalysis showed an unusual high rate of Silicon (Si) and Silver (Ag) in it. Normally in cast aluminum, silicon has a maximum soluability of 0.4 weighted percent (0.40 Wt %) but this metal had nearly 15 times that rate of Si. The closest aluminum alloy with that rate of silicon is found in 4043 aluminum which can only be manufactured in wires or rods and is used to weld cast aluminum parts together. However, 4043 aluminum has no silver (Ag) in it and my analysis showed a high rate of Ag not found in any common aluminum alloys I am aware of at this time. Below I have compared XRD peaks of known aluminum metal to that of our unknown aluminum alloy; The aluminum peaks are located exactly where we would expect them however, the peak located at two-theta 38.41 is 47 percent higher then normal, which indicates a higher rate of scattering due to additional atoms in the crystal structure such as silicon (Si) and silver (Ag).

Note that the unknown structure has a more polycrystalline structure from its clear amorphous peak. This is also unusual and not found in normal aircraft aluminum. The high content of silicon in the aluminum would make the piece highly corrosion resistant and would significantly change the melting temperature. This can account for its feather texture especially if the piece entered a medium from a vacuum such as earth’s atmosphere from space. This rules out a meteorite but does not rule out satellite debris. The metal could have also been manufactured in a laboratory taking it to its melting temperature under conditions of an ultra high vacuum and then rapidly pumping gas in the chamber, but this theory needs to be tested and is something no ordinary person could set up and do without a high degree of training and access to very sophisticated equipment such as wind tunnels and ionized vacuum chambers. Approximately 4.28 wt. % of silver (Ag) was detected in the material. Researchers have used silver as a thin surface film for aluminum alloys to enhance superconductivity.

The ‘proximity effect’ in superconductors is well known: when a superconductor is placed in contact with an ordinary metal, its superconductivity can be suppressed. However, recently physicists have demonstrated an inverse proximity effect in which superconductivity occurs more readily in a superconductor touching a metal. Material Scientists at the University of California at San Diego have found that the transition temperature of a superconducting lead film increased when it was coated with silver. The researchers attribute the effect to the strong links that exist between electrons in silver (O Bourgeois et al 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 186403).

Such an aluminum alloy can be designed for space travel and may work well to increase velocities and eliminate the drag of magnetic fields. Super conductivity occurs in some metals when they approach absolute zero temperatures (0 K ). These temperatures are known as critical temperatures (TC ). Typical TC that have been recorded are between 3K and 100K. These temperatures can be reached in the cold of space. Once the critical temperature is reached superconductivity is induced and this causes an additional effect known as “The Meissner Effect.” Let me explain,

Under normal conditions a magnetic field passes right through an object causing drag. For instance, a deep space probe experiences drag when it passes through a Jovian planets magnetic field. If such a space probe can be designed so that its surface is superconductive, then the magnetic field of a planet can be expelled from the craft eliminating drag and consequently, very high velocities can be achieved. The Meissner Effect expels a magnetic field. There is however, no technology that I am aware of where this has been used in space. Such a crafts outer skin would act as a large semi conductor and it is possible that this metal was indeed used for semiconducting applications in space. I need to stress that it is far more probable that this is a man made device and not an extraterrestrial device (although I cannot rule out that possibility). All the elements I detected in this device suggest that it could have very well been manufactured on Earth, although at the same time, they can be found throughout the universe. It should also be noted that this piece was recovered in 1985, the height of the Cold War.

Although there is no apparent evidence that the surface of this material was sprayed with a silver compound to enhance superconductivity, if it had reached a high velocity from a free fall, or an ejection from a high altitude, then the earth’s atmosphere could have acted like a natural ion implanter driving the silver atoms into the material. If such an event took place like Bob White witnessed, this could be what accounts for its silver content.

In conclusion, this is an unidentified cast aluminum alloy which has been artificially manufactured and partially destroyed by high temperatures. I cannot however rule out that it is man- made space debris nor can I confirm it is. Further test must be done to help identify its origin

David M Lamb

Material Science Graduat

CHRIS ELLIS MATERIALS SCIENTIST

Original Message — — -

> From: Chris Ellis <cjellis@gmail.com>

> To: larryroyc@yahoo.com

> Sent: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 9:21 am

> Subject: Re: MSU Preliminary Results

>

> Good morning,

> My apologies for the slow response. I’ve been giving the data a thorough

> review and trying to put together my theory. I think I am ready to share

> some of my results. First, thanks for allowing me to be a part of this

> intriguing investigation. I hope Bob’s health is doing OK as well.

>

> In reviewing the Xray Diffraction results from the “unknown” piece one can

> definitely see the prominent 2-theta diffraction lines at 38, 44, 65 and 78.

> This compares well with line positions on a known aluminum source. The

> intensities for the 65 and 78 lines are relatively weaker for the unknown

> source versus the known aluminum source. I believe Los Alamos spoke to the

> shift of the diffraction lines being due to the silicone content, which can

> be confirmed through the experimental results.

>

> The conclusion which Los Alamos made is of important note. It stated “…the

> result of rapid solidification of the alloy droplets.” This is the area that

> I would like to discuss with you further. First, it is clear that the Bob

> White Object (BWO) is of almost pure aluminum. It is clearly not a known

> alloy (which can be purchased commercially). The chemical tests have

> confirmed it’s chemical composition and the x-ray diffraction tests confirm

> the crystalline lattice structure to be that of aluminum (formed after rapid

> solidification of alloy droplets). The latter statement is important to

> disprove the mold theory. The fact that the BWO was formed rapidly by the

> cooling of alloy droplets lends us to know that the object was not formed

> via aluminum cast molding. The actual shape of the object gives further

> visual credence that the object was formed in open air and very possibly

> under significant air flow.

>

> Next, Aluminum’s melting point is 1220 F and it’s boiling point is 4472

> F. To understand the origin of the BWO, one should try to conclude how it

> was made and under what circumstances it formed. In order for aluminum to

> rapidly cool it requires a method to remove heat from the main body. The

> object would cool very fast if the temperature surrounding the object were

> significantly cooler (anything less than 1200 would suffice, but something

> around 50% would be best to cool quickly). The cooling process requires

> something to transfer the heat (air, water, molecules) so rapid cooling

> would occur faster if it was not in a vacuum. Another well-known

> experimental fact about aluminum is that it cools very rapidly. This is due

> to it’s poor metallic properties. Because of these poor metallic properties

> aluminum does not easily glow while in it’s solid or liquid forms either. As

> aluminum reaches it’s melting point, it’s subtle glow is not easily observed

> by the human eye. Within seconds of open air it will form a solid and cease

> to glow. These are typical properties of the elements found in the “poor

> metallic” section of the period table (lead, tin, gallium, etc). I know you

> know all this but I am following you through my thought process.

>

> In conclusion, the repeat analysis performed shows that the object was

> formed under extenuating circumstances (and not molded). The results show

> that the object is not a conventional semiconducting object because it lacks

> a micro-structure or macro-structure that is best suited for modern

> semi-conducting devices (LED’s, Mini-Lasers, Emitters and Detectors). The

> BWO is definitely not a common alloy and was formed under usual

> casting/molding circumstances though. I will restate that aluminum is a

> wonderful semi-conductor so it’s premature to say that the object is not (or

> was not) a semi-conducting device. I think the circumstances that formed the

> object may have destroyed it’s original form.

>

> It would be great if you could return to the scene where Bob found the

> object and find out if there are any original micro-droplets of aluminum

> alloy in the soil. Aluminum does not oxidize easily so those droplets (in

> theory) should be there. Based on Bob’s story they should be scattered in

> large volume everywhere under the point of departure from the UFO to it’s

> landing site on Earth. Have soil samples ever been gathered?

>

> Thanks again for allowing me to partake in this wonderful investigation. I

> look forward to assisting you in any way I can.

>

> Regards,

> Chris J Ellis

SELLE LABS 2ND RUN FOR CONFIRMATION OF FIRST TESTS.

Analysis of Slice from Bob White Object — 2nd Analysis

R. Olson, M. Topolski

Project Notes

Larry Cekander submitted an additional sample sectioned from the Bob White object to validate some of the findings we obtained in the analysis we performed last year. The newly submitted sample was identified as sample SM008.

Specimen Notes

The as-received sample was a small section < 1 cubic centimeter. Initially the sample was subjected to x-ray diffraction to obtain a pattern. Then it was mounted in epoxy, ground using SiC paper, and polished using water-based diamond suspensions and a Buehler automatic polishing wheel. The polished cross-section was then cleaned using ethanol in an ultrasonic bath and coated with a conductive coating of Au-Pd to prepare for analysis via Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy.

Results and Discussion

Figure 1 displays the x-ray diffraction pattern conducted from 10–60 degrees 2-theta. We see aluminum crystalline peaks similar to the last analysis.

Tables 1 and 2 contain a summary of all EDS spectra in weight and atomic %, respectively.

Figure 2 shows a low magnification image of the cross-section. I believe this is the best image to date demonstrating the layered structure of the object. Higher magnification images were taken at sites A and B. Analyses of the matrix overall shows Si contents of about 4–5% and iron of a few tenths of a percent. The iron is at a typical impurity level found in aluminum alloy. It is difficult to get iron below this value. Analysis at higher magnification show a large distribution of oxides at porosity and surfaces.

Overall, the layered appearance and presence of a significant number of oxides suggests the material was formed in a relatively turbulent condition in air.

AMORPHOUS PEAK SHOWING FROM XRD TEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY, SPRINGFIELD MO FEB. 2009

https://www.dropbox.com/s/31jv8ownyqwup14/Fate%20Magazine%20Radio-Chase%20Kloetzke-Larry%20Cekanter-08-09-2015.mp3?dl=0

THE COVERUP OF UFO INFORMATION

Larry Cekander

The presumption that the UFO phenomenon MUST be validated by the appearance of unearthly alloys or materials is a paradigm we find no reason to embrace. The components of a terrestrial planet orbiting a star 500 light years away are likely very similar to our earth’s. And a race building a physical spacecraft there would likely use the same alloys and metals we would use.

In 1985 a UFO encounter produced physical evidence from a machine unknown to our world. This artifact was recovered and has been tested by the best laboratories and universities on our planet. Out of all of those tests performed NOT ONE can match the elemental makeup of the Bob White to an aluminum alloy we make on this world.

Several tests where done in the 90’s in which glaring results of technology we didn’t have then or in 1985 when this artifact was recovered was missed, where hidden on purpose or the researchers doing the testing where not qualified to interpret the results. Since the labs doing the tests are some of the most prestigious on the planet including Los Alamos National Labs and the National Institutes for Discovery Science using New Mexico mines and minerals college, these findings where not included in their final reports. WHY???

The x ray diffraction test is one of the oldest and best known ways to detect unusual or unknown phenomenon in metal analysis of known and unknown alloy’s.

NIDS tried to compare the artifact recovered to a common 360 ALLOY used in engine manufacture, and common aluminum products. There is just one minor problem with this comparison. A 360 alloy has 9 elements in the makeup of its alloy. One of main elements is tin. NO TIN HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE BOB WHITE MATERIAL.

The artifact recovered by Bob White had 22 elements identified by this same LAB. Now being a rather inquisitive kind of guy HOW can you compare 22 elements in an alloy to one who has only 9.

Makes a guy wonder WHERE they got there degree in BULL PILES LEFT IN THE CORN FIELD. They also went on to state that an unusual non typical event occurred while being formed which included force high pressure raspid ejection and uncontrolled cooling of the object took place. Not a typical event in any casting plant I know of.

One more question is why would if you are casting a 360 alloy are there 13 more elements present that are not used in the alloy being made. Seems quality control was kind of bad to if we believe the reports submitted at the time.

Not till 2009 did we find out the COVER-UP by Los Alamos and NIDS of their reports. We took a sample of the artifact to Missouri State University and had XRD’S run again on the object. During those test a reading showed up in the object called and amorphous peak. This is not found in any commercial aluminum being produce today and wasn’t around in 1985 when this was recovered in Colorado.

RESEARCHER DAVID LAMB QUOTES.

Expert in physics and material science. he also worked at a Missouri State University. Findings were achieved using an X-Ray Diffraction Analysis: The artifact showed an unique “amorphous peak and is a poly-crystalline semiconductor”. To his knowledge this type of material is not found anywhere on Earth.

Also there is silver concentration of 4.3%,here on Earth silver is used in this form by experimental scientist as a catalyst for a superconductor. It is sprayed over aluminum and thus is in small amounts as we see here from the test results. This could be used on a craft as a way to dispel magnetic fields, especially in space as there is no energy expenditure needed for superconductivity. Lamb has further speculated that this artifact is in fact a “quasi-crystal of complex structure.” This is only in its early stages on Earth in the form of nanotechnology.

I am convinced Bob White saw what he describes. I have known Bob, Dr Gibbons, and Larry since January and have become good friends with them. They are not Hoaxers, but 3 retired men who have big hearts and are on a quest to solve the mystery of the object.

Before I met these guys I was a big skeptic. In fact, had they been up front with me and told me they had a piece of UFO, I would not have given them the time of day. In 1997 my wife and I witnessed the V shaped UFO over Phoenix. My wife insisted it was a UFO but I insisted it was simply an air force aircraft, It didn’t look that strange to me. It wasn’t until the next day that the sighting was big news. I still believed it was an air force project as we lived within a few miles of Luke AFB.

What’s different now is that I have physical evidence. The physical evidence shows very unusual properties and a stoichiometry of materials that indicates a very technologically advanced metal. To my knowledge such technology did not exist in 1985 and only exist today at the experimental stages. That is enough evidence for me to investigate further. 99.9 % of UFO evidence is personal testimony, now we have physical evidence that can be tested.

David

The Los ALAMOS XRD shows the amorphous in the same location as the MSU tests in 2009. Los Alamos did their test in 1997.

Here you see in the NIDS XRD in the same place as MSI and LOS ALAMOS. It only took 13 years for the truth about the coverup to expose its ugly little head.

Since the MSU test in 2009 SELEE labs in North Carolina did a battery of tests on samples from the artifact. They verify the past tests showing the same peak at the same location on the graph. The tests confirm Technologies exists in the artifact recovered from the UFO encounter in 1985 we still don’t have. The quote from the SELEE lab manager states

“Larry, Attached is final report with DTA addendum. To describe the Bob White object in the simplest possibly way, I think you can say it is an agglomeration of rapidly cooled droplets/particles of an aluminum silicon alloy with such an unusual structure, I can only speculate on how it was formed. Maybe we can discuss some time. Let me know what you think. Rudy Olson, On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 “

This short statement shows the artifact not only baffled one the best independent labs in the world they have no idea how to make it, what it is used for, or from where it comes from or who made it.

Since 1996 test after test have shown the artifact to be of highly unusual composition with anomalies that just don’t compare to any thing we have now or in 1985.

What is it?? I have no clue. Is it from our technology I highly doubt it.

Is it alien? I don’t no that either. did it come from this planet. NO!!! IT WAS FORMED OUTSIDE OF OUR ATMOSPHERE. The testing has shown this from certain readings from the object. We know it was exposed to cosmic radiation. Bubble chamber tests performed in November of 2006 in San Diego. Neutron radiation should not be present in the artifact.This is not guess work or wishful thinking. The radiation exists. No its not space junk. There would be a match to it if it were.

If this was a hoax as some arm chair internet icons have postulated from their living room IPAD of internet knowledge and expertise SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE would have shown an ALUMINUM object that looks like the artifact. Some rocket scientists have tried to pass off iron or steel formations as proof the BOB WHITE object is nothing… Of course comparing iron and aluminum is kind of hard since the matrix and elements don’t come close to one another. As OJ’S mouth piece said at his trial. IT THE GLOVE DON’T FIT YOU CAN’T CONVICT. The same applies comparing iron and aluminum. They are not the same folks..

Now Iknow what I have written here sounds pretty fantastic an it is. We have a manufactured aluminum alloy and all tests say it is manufactured but can find no match to it. It didn’t fall off the watermelon truck in Colorado. I wish I had a clue to what it could be.

I only ask you read this with an open mind before you close your mind to the infinite possibility this object could mean to our world.

Larry Cekander 2016 March

DEBUNKERS TRY AGAIN TO USE THE MACHINE SHOP GRINDING WHEEL FOR THE UFO ARTIFACT. NOPE!!! NO CIGAR.

INTERVIEW I DID THIS WEEKEND. I LOVE THE ARM CHAIR RESEARCH DUDES AND DUDES’ESS. SEE A PICTURE AND THE MYSTERY IS SOLVED. LOL

THE OLD FORMED IN A MACHINE SHOP AGAIN ABOUT THE ARTIFACT IN THIS INTERVIEW I DID THIS WEEKEND. NOPE NO CIGAR Lee Bodge · 00:00Years ago I work at a steel shop and we used a huge friction saw to cut through 10 inch square stainless steel bars and a whole range of toughened steel as well as aluminium,anyway at the back of the blade housing after a few weeks the molten deposits would build up and form these stalagmites that looked EXACTLY like the object this gentleman claims to be from a ufo…..exactly the same!? 😎

Like · Reply · Yesterday at 1:29am

Larry Cekander

Larry Cekander · thanks for your comment. trying to compare iron or steel machine shop grindings to the artifact recovered in 1985 is like comparing apples and oranges and trying to make grape juice.the metal object pictured in the interview is aluminum, not steel or other ferrous metal. no matter how hard you try you will never get aluminum to melt on a grinding wheel. You will never get any sparks from aluminum. as soon as you start to grind on it, it will turn to powder or dust. the Vickers hardness scale of the artifact is 61 to 63, the pictures you are using to compare to the bob white object are not close at all to the shape or consistency of the object. one other small point, the artifact has been to 15 labs and universities the past 21 years including Los alamos, Sellee, New Mexico state mine and minerals, delta state and much more. If the artifact had been in a machine shop on a grinder of some sort there would be residue in the artifact from the wheels used to form it. There are 33 elements identified and not one of them are binding agents from a grinding wheel or disc. If you have any other questions please ask me. The labs and universities we have used DO KNOW the difference between a formation of metals under a grinding wheel and the artifact. We know it was formed outside of our atmosphere. no question about it. Now maybe the machine used on it in outer space had a machine shop but then again we know it was in a molten state when ejected into a vacuum under extreme pressure with extremely cold conditions. there are identifiers showing an extraterrestrial origin to the object also. It was never near a machine shop grinder lee. If you want any other info please contact me.. thanks again for your comment. We have heard that one since 1996 when we first started to research the artifact.

One of four polygraph tests given Bob White. He passed all test given him with no hint of deception.
Los Alamos steals large piece of object.
We never mentioned ufo’s in out request. more cover-up.
These tests for gamma, beta and fast neutron radiation where run in San Diego in 2006. Positive on all chambers.

Larry Cekander

Director

UFO HARDEVIDENCE LLC

Museum of the Unexplained

Anomalies Research Group

Reeds Spring, Missouri

October 22, 2011

The foremost authority

on the

Bob White Artifact

My name is Larry Cekander and I was Bob White’s good friend and business partner with the Museum of the Unexplained dealing in research, and investigation

of the UFO Artifact he recovered in 1985 from his UFO encounter in Colorado.

Bob was not only a business partner but one of the best friends I have ever had in my life and he is very much missed since his passing on November 16, 2009 from a car accident in Reeds Spring, Missouri.

Few people have had the impact Bob did on me. He was an honest, kind gentle man with a great sense of humor and musical talent that flowed from his 3 octave vocal range and fine guitar work. I’m only sorry he wasn’t in my life longer. We spent many hours both on the road touring with the Artifact or just hanging out in the yard, on my boat fishing or eating breakfast every morning at our favorite restaurant in Branson West here in the Ozarks.

I first met Bob at a restaurant in 1975 after moving here from Champaign Illinois. I had been self employed and owned Midwest Enterprise’s which included Midwest Security Service, Midwest Marine Boat Service, and Midwest Machine Metal Works where we did welding, casting and precision machine work on steel, aluminum, brass and other metals. I have an extensive background in metal fabrication, welding, and casting of high performance parts for racing application for both the boat and auto industry and I know metals and what you can and cant do with them. This is one of the the things that got me interested in the Artifact Bob Recovered from his UFO encounter. I knew exactly what it was as far as metal but had never seen aluminum form in this way anywhere under any conditions.

I moved down here to semi retire and did work on Table Rock Lake mostly on older craft as I felt the urge. I was not what you would call a UFO believer, little grey guys, flying saucers, cigar shaped craft, flashing lights in the sky I never really thought about.

This changed the night I watched a program on the History Channel and saw Stanton Friedman doing his first release of the Roswell information on TV. I was really impressed by the research Stanton had done on this project. I had heard of the Roswell incident and of course Area 51 and all the hipe about it so I was interested in what they had to say on the subject.

This TV show was the catalyst that got me involved with UFO research, opening the Museum of the Unexplained with Bob and continuing on with research of Bob’s Artifact after Bob’s death.

Now it wasn’t the TV show that got me going, it was Bob who got me going. We where having our usual breakfast at our office at “Toms All American Cafe”. This is where we discussed the woes of the world, told lies and in general raised a bit of mayhem from time to time. Bob had been in show business 50 years and was always telling jokes or stories about this that or the other so at times you weren’t always sure it was a true tale being told.

I brought up the show I had seen the night before and said “Man I saw a great show on Roswell, aliens and UFO’S and it really impressed me”. Bob who was sitting across from me never missed a bite as he shoved some more ham and eggs in his mouth and said. “ HELL THAT AIN’T NOTHING I GOT A PIECE OF ONE”.

Well needless to say I’m not believing this mornings tale of little green guy’s and space ship parts he has as I waited for the punch line to the story. Bob continues stuffing his face with food and said nothing more. I sit a few more minutes and I say “Bob you got a piece of a UFO”!!? He says “I sure do. Got it in my closet”. OK SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD PLACE TO KEEP IT. SMH!!

Well being the gullible sort I say OK BOB if you got a piece of metal from a UFO i want to see it. “No problem he says, come on over to the house”.

Well I come over to his house and he proceeds to pull out a black gun case made for a large caliber pistol.

He opens the case and pulls out a plastic baggie and the object from it. Below is a picture of the object before it had been cut for testing at various Universities and labs from across the nation. This is what he showed me that morning in 1997.

THE ARTIFACT BEFORE ANY TESTS WHERE STARTED.

As soon as I see this thing I am blown away to say the very least. With my background in casting, welding and machine work I knew it was not a cast object from any type of process I was familiar with nor was it a machined part. It had the feathered effect on the outside of object with flow lines like some sort of injection mold. Now before I continue, this is very important,

THIS IS NOT GRINDINGS FROM A CUT OFF SAW OR GRINDING WHEEL. I want to clear that up before you think you have discovered the origin of the object and everyone in the top labs and universities have missed this simple explanation. One other rumor circulating is its and electric arc furnace electrode. This to is totally wrong as those are made from graphite. The melting degree of that is 5000 degrees. The object is aluminum alloy with a melting temp. of around 600 degrees Celsius. The Bob White Object didn’t come from a fabrication shop off the table under a grinding wheel or a casting factory. All test show this now.

Now to continue

I know there was no process that will form aluminum into this shape with sharp layered edges like the object I was holding in my hands. The closest process would be lost foam casting or thermal spray. Again those processes would not do it either as rapid intense heating and very rapid cooling had taken place to form this object.

This point is mentioned in several of the reports that uncontrolled cooling was involved. Also it would have had to have been in some sort of shielded gas like argon or vacuum to get the sharp feathered effect and be extremely cold for the rapid cooling. Bottom line, you just can’t get this in an oxygen environment and why would you have to have it so cold for the rapid cooling. This rapid cooling has been documented in almost all tests including Los Alamos, National Institute for Discovery Science, La Jolla and others.

Bob related to me the story about how he aquired the Artifact and he wanted to bring this object to the world as proof that something was going on whether it was government or alien in origin.

He was sure and said so many times to me and others that nothing he saw that night could move at the speed that the UFO he saw did or maneuver in the methods he observed. He used the term “Blink of an Eye” as the movement he observed.

In 1985 our quickest airplane was the SR-71 Blackbird which could fly at mach 3.5 or three and one half times the speed of sound. That is fast but its not a blink of the eye. You can follow that from the ground with no problem. The space shuttle for another example returns to Earth at 18,000 miles per hour, many times the speed of sound and you can follow that easily with your naked eye also.

The UFO Bob saw was as big as a 3 story building and shot away from a dead stop to thousands of feet in the air in a blink of an eye. I got a feeling the government would like to have one of their own because we don’t have one now or if we do it is super secret. We sure didn’t have anything like that in 1985 that anyone has even hinted at.

To continue, Bob and I formed the Museum of the Unexplained in 2000. We opened as a Missouri non profit research organization and within a few months had our federal 501-c3 tax exempt status in place. We opened the doors in September of 2000.

We put out all the scientific information we had at that time on the Artifact along with research performed at the Museum by staff members including a former NASA scientist, TSL Labs in Springfield Missouri, tests performed by NIDS done at New Mexico Tech at their mines and minerals department, Scrips in La Jolla California, Delta State University in Mississippi, Los Alamos National labs, EMF tests done by Rob Simone, Dr Robert Gibbons and myself at Reeds Spring, Mo, and other tests covered in the original book UFO HARD EVIDENCE written by Bob and released in 2005.

In this update I will refer back to several of the past tests as they cooberate what was discovered during later testing performed on the artifact. All tests done after the release of Bobs book will all be included here.

One very important point I want to make in this up date is the following.

SCEPTIC MAGIZINE LIES ABOUT BWO!

Skeptic magazine in November 2011, Volume 16 Number 3 did an researching article about having the answer to the origin of the Bob White Object. This article was so poorly researched by the co founder of Skeptic, Pat Linse, and their so called expert, Ean Harrison it just amazes me they could write such a story by a self proclaimed expert and call it solved with no hands on research at all.

They referenced no data from any of our latest tests or anything from me at all. Since our website has my name and cell phone number up why wasn’t I at least contacted to see if anything new had been done. I doubt if they even had a copy of his book to reference while writing this science fiction work of crap they call solved.

Hardly solved my skeptic friends. They didn’t have a clue what is aledge in the article nor did they do a bit of any actual research into the story or the object in question. I guess they figured since Bob is dead you could past this off as quality journalistic review and no one would call you on it. Well you have been called people.

This disinformation group took some of our information off the internet and all of a sudden after 20 minutes of office chair research had the answer to the orgin of the Artifact. No one bothered to see if they might be able to see the artifact in question or hold it WHICH they can if they want to do their own investigation or a ligitiment story with FACTS instead of FICTION in the content.

First thing I want to point out is Mr Harrisons expertise is in steel manufacturing and not aluminum. He goes on to state he has owned several of these objects and used them for garden decorations. Very

commendable of him to do this. Your objects weren’t aluminum Mr. Harrison. Not then and not now. There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make NO sense. Too often we…enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. this seems to be the modus operendi of SCEPTIC,

He stated “The object in question is made of excreted grinding residue. It forms in a manner similar to a common stalagmite when metal castings are “cleaned” on large stationary grinders”.

Now he made all these fantastic conclusions without bothering to contact the Museum any of our scientists, or my self or ever seeing the object in person. All any person with minimal knowledge of metals has to do is hold the object in question and you know it wasn’t formed under some grinding wheel.

Very poor research to not even see the object in question and then make broad sweeping conclusion to where it came from and how it was formed. Total BS with and bull being the key word.

To say the very least he don’t know squat about aluminum or how it acts to form into the object Bob recovered. You WILL never see an object such as what Bob recovered under a cut off saw or grinding wheel. The powder left is soft and falls apart to the touch from grinding Aluminum. Its just that simple. It wont weld itself into a solid piece. You can’t get aluminum hot enough by friction on a wheel to melt and then weld itself to the grindings. Steel will do this. ALUMINUM NO WAY NO HOW NO DAY will this happen. I have a couple of steel grindings to show the difference between steel and aluminum when lecturing or doing a presentation.

Here is one of mine from a rail car from an emergency stop. I have had it since 1966 when I worked on a section gang clearing derailments one summer. You can find these along railroad tracks all over the country.

I have asking for years to anyone trying to debunk this case to just SHOW ME ANOTHER ONE WITH THE

CHARACTERISTICS THE BOB WHITE METAL PRODUCES or has the look and feel of this artifact.

Show an EMF signal, the same elements, the x-ray exposure, the gamma, and beta, the bubble chamber experiments, the testing done on their object proving what it is or isn’t, what it is used for in the configuration the object is in and above all MAKE ME ONE. I’m in Missouri so show me please. We have shown everyone and held nothing back in any of our research. We show our work and we name names.

After 11 million plus visitors to our site and hundreds of other sites with this information on it NOT ONE PERSON has produced anything even close to the Artifact Bob recovered that night in the high desert of Colorado in 1985. Nobody, no expert, no metallurgist, no foundry worker, no aluminum expert, no jeweler, no one can produce one. Now that not only makes the Artifact Bob recovered unique it seems to make it one of only two we know about. The one we believe is a match to the object was recovered in 1947 in Denmark by the CIC, “COUNTER INTELLIGENCE CORP” which is the for runner of the CIA an special operations agency’s of our goverment doing business today.

It has been stated by scientists who have done hands on work with this object that it is an alloy aluminum made for a specific purpose using a process that is not known now nor in 1985 when this object was recovered by Bob. The Artifact has been exposed to cosmic radiation and does in fact emit an EMF signal that can be read using a basic EMF meter. X-ray tests have shown the fact emissions or signals are occurring from the object as have Faraday cage testing sealing the object in a shielded enclosure and indeed verifying a signal is present. In every test done we have had a positive EMF result from the object..

Since 2000 the Museum Anomalies Research Group has performed several tests on the Bob White object.

We tried a lot of experiments on the artifact. We turned the object into a battery using distilled water and got a reading of 3 volts after several hours. This effect is called electrolysis. That means that the combination of elements in the artifact will produce energy when in a wet or humid environment. Is this how the object creates its EMF reading? Another question that hasn’t been answered.

The first test done by our staff was an x-ray exposure tests at the Museum performed by a former NASA scientist Dr. Gibbons who is an expert in Nuclear physics and can read exposure’s of film.

The object exposed one film placed under the cut off large end with 2 pin point rays from the object. These where directed exposure’s, not a random scattered exposure like background radiation found say in a hospital x-ray room.

The next test done was performed by Rob Simone, Dr. Robert Gibbons and my self using a very good, German made EMF multi meter. The results where positive for that test as well.

Following Rob Simone’s tests I bought a multi detector from the same German maker of EMF meters used by Rob on his test. Many tests where done using this meter in locations all over the country and every time we got a postive reading in the low band “500 hertz” coming from the object. This is the band used mostly for communications. Does this mean the object is sending out a signal to someone or it could be a location device of some sort? Just another question with no answer.

The artifact also amplifies a signal when hooked into a basic antenna system. There is a radical increase in boost of the signal. We performed tests using CB and regular normal broadcast AM/FM signals. We got an increase of signal strength each time we hooked the artifact into the system.

I did bubble chamber testing on the object using state of the art radiation detectors which are used by our government for security on our borders and got positive reading on all the detectors used in the tests including fast neutron, gamma and beta.

All where low level but they where from the object. When the object was removed no bubbles where detected in any tube. These tests where done in many locations across the country under verifying conditions. In EVERY instance positive results where displayed in the tubes. This is another confirmation that prior tests where in fact positive for EMF.

It must be noted here that Fast neutrons are produced by nuclear processes such as nuclear fission. Fast neutrons are used to slow the fusion process. Most fission reactors are thermal reactors that use a neutron moderator to slow down, or thermalize the neutrons produced by nuclear fission.

This brings up how did these get into the object??? Where did it come from that it was possibly in some kind of reactor. Was the object ejected from some sort of craft and this is part of the power source from the craft. Is there a low level reactor now being used by us or others that has harnessed aluminum as a power source to propel craft in our skies or outer space? We have hundreds of questions but no answers to where, how or why this object even exists.

We know the object was outside of earths atmosphere from other tests done showing exposure to cosmic radiation.

A sample was sent to a friend working in Boston and a Faraday cage was used to do EMF testing on a sample piece. Emf was again detected coming from the sample piece from the object. A Faraday cage encloses the sample so random EMF signals can not interfere with the test. He also stated it had been exposed to high levels of radiation similar to what a jet airplane would receive from years of exposure from high altitude flight or space craft in orbit outside of our atmosphere.

In November 2006, I went to California to the IEEE convention held in San Diego. This is a trade show where all the latest equipment is displayed covering radiation detection. If it had to do with high end electronic and border protection that was on display and set up to demonstrate its superior abilities over previous units being used at the time.

Since my invitation must have been lost in the mail I crashed this event to get access to the equipment.

Since no one would let us in their labs or universities I felt this was the only way to get unbiased readings on the Artifact.

The first booth I came to the operator was happy to assist me testing the object. He asked me what it was and I told him something that fell from the sky. I never mentioned UFO’S. That was all I said. He started his radiation Geiger counter and it immediately started clicking away.

He ran fast thermal that was a positive, gamma tests that where a positive, beta that was a positive and normal x-ray emmisions which also where positive. The more he tested the more intense he got. By standers where grouping around us and the owner of the company came over watching the show. I asked him if there was anyway we where picking up back ground signals and his statement was “NOT WITH THIS METER. IT HAS BACK GROUND SCREENED OUT SO ONLY TRUE RADIATION READING ARE PRODUCED”.

I was lucky enough to tape all this with my trusty Sony camcorder. Its pretty impressive listening to the operator talk about how much had decayed out of the object and he had never seen this in anything before. He was quite impressed. This test is just one more in a line of tests again backing up prior testing done on the object.

After I returning home from my west coast adventure Bob continued to do presentations and UFO conference’s touring the country in the bus I had purchased for our work to continue.

FRIENDS IN THE UFO COMMUNITY

I was in contact with many people in the UFO community and have several very good friends who have been with us trying to help since the 90’s. Just a few of these people are Rob Simone, Darrel Sims, Peter Davenport, Ted Phillips, radio hosts, Art Bell, Jeff Rense, and Whitley Strieber who interviewed Bob Several times, plus hundreds of others who have covered the story.

Of course I have to mention Phyllis Galde who published Bob’s Story first. She continues to be one of our most profound supporters. Thanks my friend for your continued belief in us.

Another is John Greenewald Jr. who I met on line when he was just a kid of 17 back in 1999 and just starting his legacy of the The Black Vault which has declassified government documents he has acquired through the Freedom of Information Act. He owns the largest private collection in the world with down-loadable papers in his site of declassified documents that the government really don’t want you to see.

He is one of the first people to discover the Denmark file #202085, showing the object recovered there that looked like Bobs artifact and stating it came from a flying saucer.

When John wrote his book he devoted an entire chapter to us and the research we where doing from the museum in Missouri. He has been a great asset to us trying to present our evidence to the world doing two History Channel episode on Bob and the Artifact in the UFO HUNTERS SERIES.

Another person I must mention is Duane Tudahl who produced and directed the first UFO files show we where on. John Greenewald jr.was an associate producer on that show. These gentlemen have done more for us in getting the evidence we have accumulated out to the main stream America than anyone involved with us. Thank you both very much for your help and assistance.

In 2008 I contacted John about new tests we had finished and that he needed to do an update on the object and Bobs case. Bob knew his days where numbered as he had survived several serious heart attacks since the original airing of Bob’s story by John on the History Channel. I told John that he needed to get this in the works as Bob’s health was very bad.

During the next few months emails where hot and heavy as I updated John on what I had done with the Bubble chamber testing, the EMF confirmations from multipul sources and that MUFON and I where in discussions to do the isotope abundance ratio tests on chromium “cr53/54” which is the main test we have been trying to get done since 2003. I still am.

That test is the one that is absolutely definitive as far as whether the object is extraterrestrial or not. You are pregnant or you aren’t.

The actual scientists words as seen in this email from him to our group. Also notice the terms used in referring to his findings. He states “KIND OF NORMAL” How can it be kind of normal? These kind of statements are what really tick me off coming from experts in their field. Then he concludes the sample we sent him is some kind of manufactured alloy either from earth or from somewhere else. Well duh. We pretty much had that figured out already.

One person in the Mufon organization was pushing for tests to be done by them on the object. One of our most avid supporters and who got Mufon to list Bob’s UFO case in their files to start with is Davina Ryszka from Colorado. We where lucky enough to meet her in 2003 during the Flame TV shoot in Colorado. She was the west slope section director for Mufon in Colorado.

I had been in contact with Davina about seeing if she could get someone in Mufon to do the tests for us. She contacted Lin Simpson who is one of the people who research and make recommendations on UFO case’s.

She contacted me in email and we started communications with several upper echelon members of Mufon. I was given the email of Robert Powell who is one of Mufons scientists and we started discussing the object, past test done and the conclusions. After several months Dr. Powell reviewed all the data we had since 1996 and stated that indeed new tests should be done and that recommendation was made to the Mufon board of directors and that Mufon should pay for it. After a few more emails and phone calls Mufon decided they couldn’t do the tests. WHY?????

THE COVER UP

This was during the Bigalow take over of Mufon. I know Bigalow hates this story and don’t want anything done about testing on the artifact. Why you ask. It’s quite simple. During one of our newspaper stories written on us at the Museum by the KC STAR, the then director of NIDS Colm Kelleher was interviewed about the tests done by NIDS on the Bob White Object.

He reviewed the past test done by them and stated the object was rather mundane and showed no special chacteristics. This is another example of someone making a conclusion without all the information at hand.

The NIDS test was a basic elemental done on a pretty tight budget at New Mexico Tech by Dr Paul Fuierer. Colm Kelleher also isn’t a specialist in metal fabrication, casting or for that fact anything to do with metal work made this broad sweeping conclusion from a basic test.

Here is his background.

Colm Kelleher is a research scientist and author. He received his PhD in biochemistry at Trinity College, Dublin and has 21 years of experience in the field of cell and molecular biology. In addition he was an administrator for a Nevada aerospace company, Space Sciences Inc., and was also Deputy Administrator of the NIDS, where he led the investigation at Skin-walker Ranch. He currently works in the biotechnology sector. He’s a cancer specialist. Now I’m no rocket scientist but what the hell does cancer research have to do with UFO’S and METAL OBJECTS recovered from them?

Out of this impressive bio not one word is mentioned about KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT METAL. He wasn’t qualified to even make a conclusion on the lab report from New Mexico Tech. Great example of poor judgement, poor research on the tests results and no back ground to decipher the results presented.

The wrong tests where done to start with and the Scientist who did those tests stated this.

The NIDS findings where not unusual considering the test done. They concluded it was a close match to as common 360 alloy. A basic Elemental will get you some basic elemental results. They identified 22 elements in the object. There are 9 elements in 360 and one is tin ..There is no tin in the White metal, but there are 22 elements in it found by NIDS 14 more than a 360 alloy. This kind of kills the close match theory.

We contacted the scientist who did the work. He didnt know the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the metal and stated had he known the circumstances of the encounter other testing would and should have been done.

Those tests where Isotope Abundance Ratio tests on several key elements including aluminum, chromium, titanium and strontium to name a few. He said a basic elemental was a waste of time.

We want to thank Dr Paul Fuierer for his time and honesty in telling us what we needed to look for.

I personally called NIDS OUT on this and did a very scathing post about NIDS and their not very good handling of their projects with the potential of the artifact Bob had.

They had done a test on a piece of metal and totally misidentified a milking machine claw as a piece of high tech refrigeration unit from a secret military plane. Another very wrong conclusion by the cracker jack team of experts at NIDS.

Not long after this NIDS fired Kellher and NIDS CLOSED it’s doors. When with a couple of hours on the internet you find the high tech unit in a milking machine catalog using a few words and some common sense you make the whole group look like morons I guess you may make an enemy.

I have been told by good friends, when the Bob White case is mentioned around Mr Bigalow he is not very happy to hear Bobs name and I know I’m not on the xmas card list either.

My assumption it very simple, as soon as Mr. Big heard our name he pulled the plug on the tests. I firmly believe he has been the main stopping point for tests and other television programs we where scheduled to be on then canceled out of the blue with no explanation.

Interviews we have done have been wiped of audio. This happened in Roswell in 2000. We know the audio was on it as we watched it on TV that night on channel 10 CBS afiliate in Roswell.

We had a FED-X package opened, the contents removed and the packages sent on.

A TV show at channel 5 in LA was canceled after they paid our expense’s out and back with no explanation as to why. The show was taped and in the can as they say in TV production and promo’s where being run. The producer who did the taping was banned from their lot also.

Now why after getting the OK to do the show was this done? Everyone involved in the show thought it was outstanding and presented very credible evidence what we where showing was something very strange and definetly out of the ordinary.

The UFO HUNTERS SHOW was also canceled shortly after we where on the show. I don’t know if it was because of us but it seems to me when we got some large publicity all of sudden something happens to shut us down again.

Lin Simpson of Mufon wanted me to speak at one of their meetings and also speak at their conference. I have the emails from her. That never came to happen and again this was after MR BIG entered the picture. I dont believe in coincidence. When this happens over and over again you know something is going on.

With all this we have still managed to sqeak onto the air and we have made a large impression on the internet with our presence.

As long as I’m still breathing I will continue to present this case as the best evidence out there of something strange going on. I won’t say Alien because we don’t no if its alien. WE do know its extraterrestrial. It was formed outside of our atmosphere. Who made it we can’t say and so far no one else can either. What was it used for? Don’t know. No one else does either.

It matches nothing made on our planet now or in 1985 when it was recovered. It has unusualc properties that no one else can produce. It looks like nothing ever seen made from aluminum.

These conclusions have been documented in tests and all the data backs up these conclusions.

The Bob White Artifact is known now and it didn’t come from a foundry. It came from the sky. It is extraterrestrial in origin and came back to earth where it was retrieved by Bob in the high desert of Colorado in 1985.

This is what I know now and the world knows it to.

Larry Cekander

March 2013

Scientists conclusions

about the

ARTIFACT

DAVID LAMB

MATERIALS SCIENCE LAB

MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY

SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI

We where running up against a brick wall trying to get more testing done. No lab or university would touch us with a ten foot pole. We had very little money to fund anything.

We wanted to do another x-ray diffraction tests again to see if we could find out what Los Alamos had found that caused the scientist there to blurt out to Bob this is extraterrestrial. I been looking for this all my life. Of course he denies he said that but Bob had passed 4 polygraph test that indeed the Los Alamos scientist did say this to him on the phone.

We had finally came up with a bit of cash to play with and contacted MSU to see if they would do the X-RAY diffraction test on a piece of the artifact. They agreed to do this test and we traveled to Springfield to do the test.

They of course wanted to know where this came from and we said only it had fallen from the sky. David Lamb who has an air craft back ground working at Boeing in their lab said it looked like a piece of metal off of a 747 jumbo jet and was sure he had it spotted as aircraft aluminum.

They set up their machine and started the test. I was taping this so we had a physical record of what was said and done during this test. As we watched the test proceed the conversation starts to get lively as they watch the computer screen.

David said “I don’t know what this is but it sure isn’t anything off of a plane”. He and the head of the materials department are both intense as they ran the test several more times with each result the same. They could not identify what it was and no match existed in their data bank of alloy’s. They said it was a very pure aluminum in the reading also from their preliminary findings that day.

MSU RESULTS

David Lamb

March 9th 2009

Bob White’s Unknown Aluminum Alloy XRD and Micro X-Ray Anaysis Report.

We were given a 7 gram piece of unknown aluminum alloy and ran an XRD and a Micro X-Ray analysis test on it. The piece came off a much larger mass of approximately 1 kilogram. The mass was observed by Mr Bob White to have fallen from the sky after being ejected from an unknown craft. I compared this alloy to known aircraft aluminum alloy 7075 and aluminum welding material 4043. The original piece is some kind of manufactured cast aluminum and not a broken weld. It had an unusual feathered texture to it, which is something I have never seen before. My X-ray micro analysis showed an unusual high rate of Silicon (Si) and Silver (Ag) in it. Normally in cast aluminum, silicon has a maximum solubility of 0.4 weighted percent (0.40 Wt %) but this metal had nearly 15 times that rate of Si. The closest aluminum alloy with that rate of silicon is found in 4043 aluminum which can only be manufactured in wires or rods and is used to weld cast aluminum parts together. However, 4043 aluminum has no silver (Ag) in it and my analysis showed a high rate of Ag not found in any common aluminum alloys I am aware of at this time. Below I have compared XRD peaks of known aluminum metal to that of our unknown aluminum alloy; The aluminum peaks are located exactly where we would expect them however, the peak located at two-theta 38.41 is 47 percent higher then normal, which indicates a higher rate of scattering due to additional atoms in the crystal structure such as silicon (Si) and silver (Ag).

Note that the unknown structure has a more poly-crystalline structure from its clear amorphous peak. This is also unusual and not found in normal aircraft aluminum. The high content of silicon in the aluminum would make the piece highly corrosion resistant and would significantly change the melting temperature. This can account for its feather texture especially if the piece entered a medium from a vacuum such as earth’s atmosphere from space. This rules out a meteorite but does not rule out satellite debris. The metal could have also been manufactured in a laboratory taking it to its melting temperature under conditions of an ultra high vacuum and then rapidly pumping gas in the chamber, but this theory needs to be tested and is something no ordinary person could set up and do without a high degree of training and access to very sophisticated equipment such as wind tunnels and ionized vacuum chambers. Approximately 4.28 wt. % of silver (Ag) was detected in the material. Researchers have used silver as a thin surface film for aluminum alloys to enhance superconductivity.

The ‘proximity effect’ in superconductors is well known: when a superconductor is placed in contact with an ordinary metal, its superconductivity can be suppressed. However, recently physicists have demonstrated an inverse proximity effect in which superconductivity occurs more readily in a superconductor touching a metal. Material Scientists at the University of California at San Diego have found that the transition temperature of a superconducting lead film increased when it was coated with silver. The researchers attribute the effect to the strong links that exist between electrons in silver (O Bourgeois et al 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 186403).

Such an aluminum alloy can be designed for space travel and may work well to increase velocities and eliminate the drag of magnetic fields. Super conductivity occurs in some metals when they approach absolute zero temperatures (0 K ). These temperatures are known as critical temperatures (TC ). Typical TC that have been recorded are between 3K and 100K. These temperatures can be reached in the cold of space. Once the critical temperature is reached superconductivity is induced and this causes an additional effect known as “The Meissner Effect.” Let me explain,

Under normal conditions a magnetic field passes right through an object causing drag. For instance, a deep space probe experiences drag when it passes through a Jovian planets magnetic field. If such a space probe can be designed so that its surface is superconductive, then the magnetic field of a planet can be expelled from the craft eliminating drag and consequently, very high velocities can be achieved. The Meissner Effect expels a magnetic field. There is however, no technology that I am aware of where this has been used in space. Such a crafts outer skin would act as a large semi conductor and it is possible that this metal was indeed used for semiconducting applications in space. I need to stress that it is far more probable that this is a man made device and not an extraterrestrial device (although I cannot rule out that possibility). All the elements I detected in this device suggest that it could have very well been manufactured on Earth, although at the same time, they can be found throughout the universe. It should also be noted that this piece was recovered in 1985, the height of the Cold War.

All though there is no apparent evidence that the surface of this material was sprayed with a silver compound to enhance superconductivity, if it had reached a high velocity from a free fall, or an ejection from a high altitude, then the earth’s atmosphere could have acted like a natural ion implant-er driving the silver atoms into the material. If such an event took place like Bob White witnessed, this could be what accounts for its silver content.

In conclusion, this is an unidentified cast aluminum alloy which has been artificially manufactured and partially destroyed by high temperatures. I cannot however rule out that it is man- made space debris nor can I confirm it is. Further test must be done to help identify its origin

David M Lamb

Material Science

Missouri State University.

MORE SCIENTIST COMMENTS ON OBJECT

Chris Ellis

My very first impression of the object was that it looked organic. I thought it was a petrified pine cone of ancient origin. Once I got closer I realized it was an aluminum alloy and not rock or stone. After spending some time studying it visually, I thought it might be an intricate casting of something organic. It wasn’t until after I studied all the macroscopic, microscopic and Scanning Electron Microscopic (SEM) photos that I decided the object was not modeled after an organic item and that it was not cast. There are no signs of casting or hand carving on the object. It has a 3-D structure that would be near impossible to cast. (I am following you completely through my thought process) My study then turned to what other scientists were saying. In Bob’s book and in the documents he contains, several other scientists have analyzed the object and the data and they concluded that the object was not cast or etched. I knew I was on the right path of thought. Next, I conducted several thought experiments to determine what the object (in its current shape) could be used for. I found none. In its current form it could only be used as an ornament. It was then that I deduced that it must have changed from its original form. But how? To understand this you must understand the properties of metals at their melting temperatures. It’s also important to note that you must understand the principle of crystal lattice structure. First, the object contains no obvious microstructure. It has no wires, no obvious detail that would tell me that it was a man-made object used in known electronics.

Next, it’s not like any metals used in substrates in the semiconductor industry. The substrates I studied for my degree where very thin (<1mm) in depth and were deposited via a very complex process. They have a very well documented crystal lattice structure. Bob’s object was very large and in my opinion could not be used as an LED or Laser Diode for example. Therefore, I knew that it wasn’t a classical piece of micro-electronics nor was it a uniform object of known crystal lattice structure. Experiments have found that different samples of the object have yielded different concentrations, therefore the object is 100% uniform throughout it’ s body. Studying it’s feathery scales it has been determined that the surface has not been scorched (or oxidized) like you would see if it was heated in an oxygen-rich environment or exposed to temperatures that would make it burn. The surface is quite smooth. This differs from you’d see if you looking at something taken from a cutoff saw. Bob’s object is extremely smooth and this is seen in the microscopic photos as well. Additionally, there are flow lines in the feathers that indicate metal flow or creep as a result of being near its melting point. It then became clear to me that the object was heated to near its melting temperature (which would be around 600–700C) and subjected to gravity or intense air flow. This would cause the near-liquid metal on the surface to creep towards one end. If the object fell from low-earth orbit (according to NASA’s website calculator) it would definitely achieve the necessary velocity to obtain enough friction, which would result in the necessary heat and air flow to form the surface. However, it would reach astonishing speeds and would hit the ground before it could form such a long feathery surface. Also, the data suggests that the feathery objects were formed in an oxygen poor environment. Other scientists have concluded this as well. This throws out one of my main theories that the object could be space debris (from low-earth orbit, which is >100 miles in altitude). The other theory is that it encountered the heat and flow by passing in front of something that creates great heat and flow (jet engine). I considered this however the object would have to be held VERY firmly in place while it was morphed. The object’s original base shows no sign of being welded in place and it shows no sign of being cut from a weld. The object’s original base looks like the surface of a little meteorite. It has little divets and is rough in appearance, yet smooth. It does not look machined or tooled. At most it looks cast. However, the end is surrounded on it’s end by the beginnings of the feathers. So it takes me back to the free-fall theory again.

This is where, as a scientist, I have to evaluate Bob’s testimony very carefully. You cannot discount his testimony because it’s such an important part of this investigation. He found the object and he saw where it came from. As an investigator you have to see how the shape of the object matches his testimony.

First, Bob says it was shot out of the UFO at an unknown height. He said there was a small explosion and that the little object shot like a meteor towards the Earth. He followed it and found it at the end of a large groove in the ground. He said this was off an embankment next to the highway. Western Colorado has very dry soil. It’s sandy and rocky. If a meteor hits the ground there, you’re not going to see the same impact that you’d see in farming soil. The groove matches what I would consider to be a high-speed impact from a cylindrical object. It was moving at high speed because it left a groove versus just bouncing off the ground. It was also travelling like a bullet and not tumbing end over end. If it was tumbling it would have bounced and not left a groove. Because we don’t know how long, deep and big the groove was we have to assume that it was at least significant enough for Bob to remember it. The object was found in the groove and not outside the groove. To make a groove like that in that type of soil, you’d need a lot of energy. This is something that needs to be recreated under a controlled environment.

Next, Bob says it was still glowing hot when he found it. Assuming it was a moonless night, you might see this. Aluminum is a poor metal and unlike iron it quickly hardens and it does not readily glow when hot. You can see many videos out there that show aluminum slag being poured. It solidifies rapidly. Aluminum in open air will not continue to glow like iron so Bob could have only seen the object glowing if he came upon it while it was still very hot and freshly landed. Also, it would have to be very dark outside to see the minuscule glow. This statement is negated if the object was getting heat from elsewhere (internally).

The object has been cut at both ends, and the photos posted on flickr show this. You can see the fat end has the bumpy texture that I mentioned. Also, in the photos, you’ll see two different colors. One, is the blue from the LED light that was used to illuminate the object. The second is brown, which is from the incandescent lights in the room. They give a brown reflection because of the grime and oxidation (from the 1% iron content). While the LED photos are nice, the brown photos show that the object is not coated in silver. Instead it shows that the object’s feather coat is actually made up of the constituent metals, including iron, which easily oxidizes. Cooper oxidizes as well and it a likely contributor to the color.

The object has two lobes forming somewhat of a U shape. The tail is extremely tapered and has an aerodynamic appeal to it. I want to perform some aerodynamic tests, which will help prove that the object was formed under intense “air flow”. 
 
The object formed two distinct circular patterns when placed on the x-ray film. Uranium decays into Thorium, which then decays into Radon. During the decay process, alpha particles are emitted. Alpha particles are easly blocked by newspaper. So, a metal body would easily block or contain alpha particles. Escaping alpha particles would be highly scattered. So, unless the Uranium is at the surface, how did such a distinct pattern form? I don’t know. Also, why where the other films unexposed?

As a scientist I am very familiar with radiation and radioactive materials. I studied them during college. The three main types of radiation in the decay process are: alpha, beta and gamma. There are other forms of decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay), including neutrons. So, where did the patterns, which were only seen at the end, come from? Nobody knows. X-ray film will expose x-rays and other high-energy rays and particles, but they will not expose in the visible light or below. I can say that the x-ray film experiments must be repeated to confirm what is being seen.

Next, the original research team took the sample to California and the object was exposed to a Neutron Bubble Chamber test tube. The object was seen emitting neutrons, which is actually pretty extraordinary. It did this under appropriate shielding from cosmic radiation. This is a fantastic result that I am looking forward to recreating. What emits fast neutrons? Well, they typically come from cosmic radiation or particle accelerators. They are also products of fusion and fission. Bob’s object is not an obvious source of any of these physical processes. This area must be studied further and the tests must be repeated.

Chris Ellis

Note that the unknown structure has a more polycrystalline structure from its clear amorphous peak. This is also unusual and not found in normal aircraft aluminum. The high content of silicon in the aluminum would make the piece highly corrosion resistant and would significantly change the melting temperature. This can account for its feather texture especially if the piece entered a medium from a vacuum such as earth’s atmosphere from space. This rules out a meteorite but does not rule out satellite debris. The metal could have also been manufactured in a laboratory taking it to its melting temperature under conditions of an ultra high vacuum and then rapidly pumping gas in the chamber, but this theory needs to be tested and is something no ordinary person could set up and do without a high degree of training and access to very sophisticated equipment such as wind tunnels and ionized vacuum chambers. Approximately 4.28 wt. % of silver (Ag) was detected in the material. Researchers have used silver as a thin surface film for aluminum alloys to enhance superconductivity.

The ‘proximity effect’ in superconductors is well known: when a superconductor is placed in contact with an ordinary metal, its superconductivity can be suppressed. However, recently physicists have demonstrated an inverse proximity effect in which superconductivity occurs more readily in a superconductor touching a metal. Material Scientists at the University of California at San Diego have found that the transition temperature of a superconducting lead film increased when it was coated with silver. The researchers attribute the effect to the strong links that exist between electrons in silver (O Bourgeois et al 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 186403).

Such an aluminum alloy can be designed for space travel and may work well to increase velocities and eliminate the drag of magnetic fields. Super conductivity occurs in some metals when they approach absolute zero temperatures (0 K ). These temperatures are known as critical temperatures (TC ). Typical TC that have been recorded are between 3K and 100K. These temperatures can be reached in the cold of space. Once the critical temperature is reached superconductivity is induced and this causes an additional effect known as “The Meissner Effect.” Let me explain,

Under normal conditions a magnetic field passes right through an object causing drag. For instance, a deep space probe experiences drag when it passes through a Jovian planets magnetic field. If such a space probe can be designed so that its surface is superconductive, then the magnetic field of a planet can be expelled from the craft eliminating drag and consequently, very high velocities can be achieved. The Meissner Effect expels a magnetic field. There is however, no technology that I am aware of where this has been used in space. Such a crafts outer skin would act as a large semi conductor and it is possible that this metal was indeed used for semiconducting applications in space. I need to stress that it is far more probable that this is a man made device and not an extraterrestrial device (although I cannot rule out that possibility). All the elements I detected in this device suggest that it could have very well been manufactured on Earth, although at the same time, they can be found throughout the universe. It should also be noted that this piece was recovered in 1985, the height of the Cold War.

All though there is no apparent evidence that the surface of this material was sprayed with a silver compound to enhance superconductivity, if it had reached a high velocity from a free fall, or an ejection from a high altitude, then the earth’s atmosphere could have acted like a natural ion implanter driving the silver atoms into the material. If such an event took place like Bob White witnessed, this could be what accounts for its silver content.

In conclusion, this is an unidentified cast aluminum alloy which has been artificially manufactured and partially destroyed by high temperatures. I cannot however rule out that it is man- made space debris nor can I confirm it is. Further test must be done to help identify its origin

David M Lamb

Material Science

Missouri State University.

MORE SCIENTIST COMMENTS ON OBJECT

Chris Ellis

My very first impression of the object was that it looked organic. I thought it was a petrified pine cone of ancient origin. Once I got closer I realized it was an aluminum alloy and not rock or stone. After spending some time studying it visually, I thought it might be an intricate casting of something organic. It wasn’t until after I studied all the macroscopic, microscopic and Scanning Electron Microscopic (SEM) photos that I decided the object was not modeled after an organic item and that it was not cast. There are no signs of casting or hand carving on the object. It has a 3-D structure that would be near impossible to cast. (I am following you completely through my thought process) My study then turned to what other scientists were saying. In Bob’s book and in the documents he contains, several other scientists have analyzed the object and the data and they concluded that the object was not cast or etched. I knew I was on the right path of thought. Next, I conducted several thought experiments to determine what the object (in its current shape) could be used for. I found none. In its current form it could only be used as an ornament. It was then that I deduced that it must have changed from its original form. But how? To understand this you must understand the properties of metals at their melting temperatures. It’s also important to note that you must understand the principle of crystal lattice structure. First, the object contains no obvious microstructure. It has no wires, no obvious detail that would tell me that it was a man-made object used in known electronics.

Next, it’s not like any metals used in substrates in the semiconductor industry. The substrates I studied for my degree where very thin (<1mm) in depth and were deposited via a very complex process. They have a very well documented crystal lattice structure. Bob’s object was very large and in my opinion could not be used as an LED or Laser Diode for example. Therefore, I knew that it wasn’t a classical piece of micro-electronics nor was it a uniform object of known crystal lattice structure. Experiments have found that different samples of the object have yielded different concentrations, therefore the object is 100% uniform throughout it’ s body. Studying it’s feathery scales it has been determined that the surface has not been scorched (or oxidized) like you would see if it was heated in an oxygen-rich environment or exposed to temperatures that would make it burn. The surface is quite smooth. This differs from you’d see if you looking at something taken from a cutoff saw. Bob’s object is extremely smooth and this is seen in the microscopic photos as well. Additionally, there are flow lines in the feathers that indicate metal flow or creep as a result of being near its melting point. It then became clear to me that the object was heated to near its melting temperature (which would be around 600–700C) and subjected to gravity or intense air flow. This would cause the near-liquid metal on the surface to creep towards one end. If the object fell from low-earth orbit (according to NASA’s website calculator) it would definitely achieve the necessary velocity to obtain enough friction, which would result in the necessary heat and air flow to form the surface. However, it would reach astonishing speeds and would hit the ground before it could form such a long feathery surface. Also, the data suggests that the feathery objects were formed in an oxygen poor environment. Other scientists have concluded this as well. This throws out one of my main theories that the object could be space debris (from low-earth orbit, which is >100 miles in altitude). The other theory is that it encountered the heat and flow by passing in front of something that creates great heat and flow (jet engine). I considered this however the object would have to be held VERY firmly in place while it was morphed. The object’s original base shows no sign of being welded in place and it shows no sign of being cut from a weld. The object’s original base looks like the surface of a little meteorite. It has little divets and is rough in appearance, yet smooth. It does not look machined or tooled. At most it looks cast. However, the end is surrounded on it’s end by the beginnings of the feathers. So it takes me back to the free-fall theory again.

This is where, as a scientist, I have to evaluate Bob’s testimony very carefully. You cannot discount his testimony because it’s such an important part of this investigation. He found the object and he saw where it came from. As an investigator you have to see how the shape of the object matches his testimony.

First, Bob says it was shot out of the UFO at an unknown height. He said there was a small explosion and that the little object shot like a meteor towards the Earth. He followed it and found it at the end of a large groove in the ground. He said this was off an embankment next to the highway. Western Colorado has very dry soil. It’s sandy and rocky. If a meteor hits the ground there, you’re not going to see the same impact that you’d see in farming soil. The groove matches what I would consider to be a high-speed impact from a cylindrical object. It was moving at high speed because it left a groove versus just bouncing off the ground. It was also travelling like a bullet and not tumbing end over end. If it was tumbling it would have bounced and not left a groove. Because we don’t know how long, deep and big the groove was we have to assume that it was at least significant enough for Bob to remember it. The object was found in the groove and not outside the groove. To make a groove like that in that type of soil, you’d need a lot of energy. This is something that needs to be recreated under a controlled environment.

Next, Bob says it was still glowing hot when he found it. Assuming it was a moonless night, you might see this. Aluminum is a poor metal and unlike iron it quickly hardens and it does not readily glow when hot. You can see many videos out there that show aluminum slag being poured. It solidifies rapidly. Aluminum in open air will not continue to glow like iron so Bob could have only seen the object glowing if he came upon it while it was still very hot and freshly landed. Also, it would have to be very dark outside to see the minuscule glow. This statement is negated if the object was getting heat from elsewhere (internally).

The object has been cut at both ends, and the photos posted on flickr show this. You can see the fat end has the bumpy texture that I mentioned. Also, in the photos, you’ll see two different colors. One, is the blue from the LED light that was used to illuminate the object. The second is brown, which is from the incandescent lights in the room. They give a brown reflection because of the grime and oxidation (from the 1% iron content). While the LED photos are nice, the brown photos show that the object is not coated in silver. Instead it shows that the object’s feather coat is actually made up of the constituent metals, including iron, which easily oxidizes. Cooper oxidizes as well and it a likely contributor to the color.

The object has two lobes forming somewhat of a U shape. The tail is extremely tapered and has an aerodynamic appeal to it. I want to perform some aerodynamic tests, which will help prove that the object was formed under intense “air flow”. 
 
The object formed two distinct circular patterns when placed on the x-ray film. Uranium decays into Thorium, which then decays into Radon. During the decay process, alpha particles are emitted. Alpha particles are easly blocked by newspaper. So, a metal body would easily block or contain alpha particles. Escaping alpha particles would be highly scattered. So, unless the Uranium is at the surface, how did such a distinct pattern form? I don’t know. Also, why where the other films unexposed?

As a scientist I am very familiar with radiation and radioactive materials. I studied them during college. The three main types of radiation in the decay process are: alpha, beta and gamma. There are other forms of decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay), including neutrons. So, where did the patterns, which were only seen at the end, come from? Nobody knows. X-ray film will expose x-rays and other high-energy rays and particles, but they will not expose in the visible light or below. I can say that the x-ray film experiments must be repeated to confirm what is being seen.

Next, the original research team took the sample to California and the object was exposed to a Neutron Bubble Chamber test tube. The object was seen emitting neutrons, which is actually pretty extraordinary. It did this under appropriate shielding from cosmic radiation. This is a fantastic result that I am looking forward to recreating. What emits fast neutrons? Well, they typically come from cosmic radiation or particle accelerators. They are also products of fusion and fission. Bob’s object is not an obvious source of any of these physical processes. This area must be studied further and the tests must be repeated.

Chris Ellis

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:26 PM, larry <larryroyc@yahoo.com> wrote:

I went to Lexington KY this weekend and had the tests run on Monday AM.

I have enclosed what they found..19 elements in total..no tin or silver…What I did find unusual was that arsinic and bromine has shown up in this report..They ran the sample twice..They where very interested in the object and the story…They gave me some possible ISOTOPE test posibilities also..Let me know what you think.also a reporter from one of the tv stations wants to do another interview about what we are doing now that bob is gone..i want to have both of you guys included on that interview…we can cooridinate a time later..larry

— — On Fri, 2/12/10, Chris Ellis <cjellis@> wrote:

From: Chris Ellis <cjellis@.com>

Subject: Re: test results PIXE

To: “larry” <larryroyc@yahoo.com>

Cc: “Lamb David” <Lamb996@>

Date: Friday, February 12, 2010, 1:13 PM

Larry,

Heck of an accomplishment, great work. This test is absolutely great to have because it, again, confirms that this is not A360 or a casting alloy that would have Tin. I know MSU found Silver, so these results contrast with that finding. The ratios of Al and Si vary between the tests, which I would expect if the samples were different. Can you confirm if Run1 and Run2 are seperate samples?

Run 1 has Al = 76.7% and Si = 4.8%

Run 2 has Al = 81.1% and Si = 3.0%

These results most align with LaJolla. The Al concentrations are some of the lowest ever measured, too. I have the following:

NMT, Al = 85.1%, Si = 9.1%

LANL, Al = 92.5%, Si = 6.8%

LaJolla, Al = 80%, Si = n/a

TSL, Al = 91.5%, Si = 6.1%

MSU, Al = 88.6%, Si = 5.98%

A360, Al = 85.8%, Si = 8.5%

Several of the measurements from EAI are in ppm, which need to be converted to % concentration. I can do the calculations, but I am curious if EAI left these in ppm for a reason or if they’d be willing to calculate % concentration for us?

The variations in results show me, foremost, that the margin for error in elemental analysis is still high. That aside, it indicates to me that the object is NOT uniform in composition. Meaning, that if it was cast from a single source, then I would expect more uniformity. Also, if it was ejected from a single source ‘sprayer’ as some have suggested, I would expect more uniformity. Same goes for being slag from a ‘cut’ source. The fact that it’s not uniform lends me to believe that it could be a product that was ‘work in progress’ and/or came from multiple sources. This happens, I’ve read, when alloys are wrought. The cold wrought process is a method by which metallurgists use to create new alloys that wouldn’t normally be made via a melt. You can get higher concentrations of specific metals in the cold wrought process. Also, aluminum, when it’s cool is less likely to stress through the hot-to-cold cooling process.

So, how did the BWO get such high concentrations of elements, without uniformity and go from being red-hot to cold without cracking? No clue.

We also know that the micro structure of the surface indicates it was not formed in an oxygen rich environment, or it would have created a thick Aluminum-Oxygen layer. There’s more to that, in Fandrich’s analysis.

So, looks like Isotope tests are the final lap in this race. What did they say about our options? They know anyone with a lab? :D

Thanks for sending this. I will keep doing some research on their results to see what other observations I can make.

Interview sounds good. What is their angle on the story? This for Springfield?

Thanks! Talk soon,

Chris

Reaching out

One of Bob’s last

plea’s for help

from: bob white <robertwhite65737@yahoo.com>

Mr. Dan Akroyd

309 East 89th Street

New York, NY 10128

Dear Mr. Akroyd: As you are well aware of, proving the existence of extraterrestrial visitation to our planet meets with strong opposition. After many frustrating attempts to get an honest analysis of the Bob White object, we are on the cutting edge of reaching our goal. By not saying what we had, we went in the back door of a major university in the Midwest, Missouri State University in Springfield, MO. The scientist who operated the x-ray diffraction spectrometer, David Lamb, did not know what he was analyzing. Now, after discovering a new type of alloy in the Bob White object, he is on board with us. Former NASA scientist Dr. Robert H. Gibbons has been instrumental in obtaining startling results from x-ray exposure and EMF tests. Our team needs to do isotope abundance ratio tests for chromium and strontium isotopes. According to scientists who do tests on meteorites and extraterrestrial samples from the Moon and other planets, these tests are conclusive, but are very expensive. They could cost as much as $20,000 which we do not have. We have three scientists who will be present when these tests are performed, ensuring an honest analysis. Dr. Robert H Gibbons, David Lamb and Christopher Ellis, who were all interviewed on the recent UFO Hunters — Relics episode. WE are asking for your support along with a donation. Any help will be appreciated.

Bob White

Friday, May 29, 2009 11:54 AM

Lights Still like Bob’s

On Mon, 11/9/09, Davina Ryszka <nightsky25@msn.com> wrote:

From: Davina Ryszka <nightsky25@msn.com>

Subject: FW: IMPORTANT BOOK

To: “Larry Cekander” <larryroyc@yahoo.com>

Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 8:36 PM

Hi Larry:

I thought I’d share this with you as it happened in the an area of plenty of UFO sightings and of course near Bob White’s famous area. See Below. This is a friend of mine who is a Railroad Engineer and pulls trains from Grand Junction over to Provo, Utah and back, and then goes over to Denver. See where his sighting occurred below.

Davina

Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 09:26:16 -0500

Subject:

To: nightsky25@msn.com

Hello Davina,

I saw a good sighting on train Wed. night out east of Cisco below Rabbit Valley. At 2100 hrs red light suspened in sky not moving east of us while we were heading east. Took out Mag Lite stuck it out of Engine moving 50 mph and began to signal obect 2000 ft. above ground. Used 3 short flashes and kept it up for about 2 minutes suddenly object began to move towards us at slow down ward angled motion. It passed in front of train got to see better view all red lighted on left side profile long but this is the clincher- right side of object blue lighted- distance from train 500 ft.high and 500 ft off to the left. It went over top of hill and disappeared out of veiw- jdf

THE TEST WE STILL NEED

ISOTOPE ABUNDANCE RATIO TESTS

CHROMIUM

— — -Original Message — — -

From: Macisaac, Chris <cmacisaac@ucsd.edu>

To: hhardley43@aol.com <hhardley43@aol.com>

Sent: Tue, Nov 10, 2009 3:05 pm

Subject: RE: Bob White Object

Our Cr standards that we

measure weekly yield a 53/52 ratio of 0.11344

54/52 ratio of 0.0282075

These are the readings we need for extraterrestrial.

WHAT BOB SAW IN THE SKY

Bob described a large light as big as a barn on the ground. This light shot into the sky and connected to two tubular lights in the sky.

This type of sighting is hardly new and just recently in New Jersey the exact thing Bob described was photographed in the sky.

This photo from Ken Pfeifer falcon51@comcast.net who is a chief investigator for Mufon shows a similar light in the sky from his web site WWW.MUFON NJ NEWS.COM.

This picture is exactly like the light seen by Bob in 1985.

RUDOLPH A. OLSON III, Ph.D.

E-mail: RudolphOlsonIII@gmail.com

PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY

Established, results-driven Vice President of Engineering with expertise in materials science. Dedicated to new product development, a market-driven approach to business, continuous improvement, quality, safety, and the environment.

EDUCATION

Northwestern University, Evanston, IL

Ph.D. Materials Science and Engineering, 1998

M.S. Materials Science and Engineering, 1994

University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign, IL

B.S. Ceramic Engineering, 1991

CAREER EXPERIENCE

Rising Materials Technologies, LLC

President, 5/10 to present

-Specializing in consulting for cement-based applications.

-Co-wrote proposal “Innovative Concepts for Composite Tooling”, a cement-based approached. Was awarded $80K Phase 1 grant from the Navy.

SELEE Corporation, Hendersonville, NC

Vice President of Engineering, 7/07 to present

- Assumed original role.

- Led development of new process for first new borosilicate glass-bonded aluminum filter in over 20 years. Approximately $10M annual sales. Received Corporate Environmental Award from the American Ceramic Society for phosphate-free aluminum filter (American Ceramic Society Bulletin, Oct 2009, pp. 29–32). Margins increased about 4X.

- Led development of new product and process for low cost, silica-glass bonded iron and aluminum foundry filter, awarded US 7,718,114 as well as patents in Canada, Mexico, and Russia. Margins increased about 4X.

- Revised formulation and eliminated field failures of sintered partially stabilized zirconia filter for steel filtration applications.

- Developed new reticulated, vitreous carbon foam product for energy storage device.

CARBO Ceramics, New Iberia, LA

Research Engineer, 7/06 to 7/07

Conducted research on new products for oil field and foundry applications. Determined how potassium affects the strength and performance of proppants, patent pending.

Owens Corning, Science and Technology Center, Granville, OH

Senior Engineer, 6/05 to 7/06

Researched the processing, microstructure, properties and performance of manufactured stone veneer containing fly ash. Developed ultra-lightweight concrete formulations containing hollow fly ash. Provided support to manufacturing plants in scrap reduction efforts. Designed and implemented a new segment in the manufacturing process that was projected to save over $3M annual through scrap reduction, awarded US 7,976,963.

SELEE Corporation, Hendersonville, NC

Director — Research and Development, 8/99 to 6/05

Directed a team of engineers and experienced technicians in research and development efforts. Supported manufacturing, quality, sales, and purchasing departments. Responsible for R&D budget at about $1M annual. Conferred with vendors during evaluation of new materials. Interacted with clients to identify needs and provide solutions. Collaborated with patent attorney and managed intellectual property. Worked within ISO 9001:2000 standard.

- Improved properties of silica glass-bonded SiC iron foundry filters and solved field failures, awarded US 6,663,776.

- Solved complex issues for a primary aluminum producer by developing an improved phosphate glass-bonded alumina filter, retained over $1M in sales.

- Developed fine pore, low density phosphate glass-bonded alumina filter for aluminum filtration, awarded EP 1 834 684.

- Developed a catalyst support used in removal of harmful emissions from hydrocarbon polluted air streams, commercially available for wood-burning stoves.

- Developed a thermal shock resistant catalyst support with Shell and CRI, used in a reactor for hydrogen generation, won 2nd prize in the 2005 IAC/Impact award for applied catalysis.

- Developed a thermally insulating, ceramic foam reaction vessel for use in treating spent hydrofluoric acid, sales reached $1M in 2008, awarded US 7,316,721.

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL

Post-Doctoral Appointment, 4/98 to 8/99

Performed research for the Yucca Mountain project. Investigated the reaction kinetics between water vapor and nuclear waste glass using accelerated testing methods. Studied the effect of crystallization pressure due to hydration of glass within a closed container. Discovered and led the characterization of a new uranium silicate phase.

Northwestern University, Evanston, IL

Research Assistant, Doctoral Candidate, 1/95 to 3/98

Developed the first microstructure-property relationship for the drying shrinkage of cement paste using multiple correlation. Characterized the drying shrinkage of blended cement paste containing fly ash, blast furnace slag or silica fume at the microstructural level using an environmental SEM and image analysis software. Developed an innovative technique for measuring the amount of C-S-H in a cement paste. Characterized the chemistry and microstructure of a fly ash bearing cement-based waste form designed to encapsulate waste from Hanford, WA. Determined the cause for the appearance of a dark green phase in hardened cement paste containing ground granulated blast furnace slag and proposed solutions for elimination of the color.

Research Assistant, Master of Science Candidate, 8/92 to 11/93

Investigated the dielectric response of cement paste using impedance spectroscopy. Developed new concepts on the microstructural characteristics of the pore network in cement paste. Contributed to a feature article in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society.

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL

Student Internship, Summers of 1990, 1991 and 1992

Determined optimum high-temperature processing conditions for Pb-doped BSCCO superconductor for use in Ag-sheathed wires. Investigated the use of Ca2CuO3 as a substrate for BSCCO. Engineered a world-record strength for bulk YBCO super-conducting material using partial melt sintering.

EXPERTISE

Refractory ceramics; ceramic processing; statistical analysis; rheology; low thermal expansion materials; cementitious materials; mineral admixtures.

AWARDS AND CERTIFICATES

- Corporate Environmental Award — American Ceramic Society, Oct 2009.

- US 7,976,963, “Concrete Product with Enhanced Ornamental Surface Layer”

- US 7,718,114, RU 2,380,138, “Ceramic Foam Filter for Better Filtration of Molten Iron”

- EP 1,834,684, “Improved Fine Pore Media and Method of Making Same”

- US 7,316,721, “Ceramic Foam Insulator with Thermal Expansion Joint”

- US 6,663,776, “High Strength SiC Filter and Method for the Manufacture Thereof”

- Individual Leadership Award, SELEE — 2003

- Managing Technical Professionals Seminar, MIT — 2003

- James E. Dore Award for Excellence in New Product Development, SELEE — 2002

- Invited Poster — Gordon Research Conference, July 1996

PUBLICATIONS

Haack, D., R. Olson, “Processing, Microstructure, and Properties of Reticulated Vitreous Carbon Foam Manufactured Via the Sponge Replication Technique”, 36th International Conference and Expo on Advanced Ceramics and Composites Proceedings, The American Ceramic Society, Daytona Beach, January 22–27, 2012.

Aubrey, L., R. Olson, D. Smith, “Development of a Phosphate-Free Reticulated Foam Filter Material for Aluminum Cast Houses,” 11th Aluminum Cast House Technology Conference, Sept. 13–16, Queensland, Australia (2009).

Olson, R.A., and L.C.B. Martins, “The Use of Cellular Ceramics in Molten Metal Filtration,” Cellular Ceramics, ed. Paolo Colombo and Michael Scheffler, (2005) 403–415.

Olson, R.A., and A. Norris, “Cellular Ceramic Kiln Furniture,” Cellular Ceramics, eds. Paolo Colombo and Michael Scheffler, (2005) 439–453.

Olson, R.A., and H.M. Jennings, “Estimation of C-S-H Content in a Blended Cement Paste Using Water Adsorption,” Cement and Concrete Research, 31 (2001) 351–356.

Burns, P.C., R.A. Olson, R.J. Finch, J.M. Hanchar, Y. Thibault, “KNa3(UO2)2(Si4O10)2(H2O)4, A New Compound Formed During Vapor Hydration of an Actinide-Bearing Borosilicate Waste Glass,” Journal of Nuclear Materials, 278 (2000) 290–300.

Olson, R.A, “The Microstructure of Portland Cement Paste and its Relationship to Drying Shrinkage: A Study of Blended Cement Paste,” Ph.D. Thesis, Northwestern University, (1998).

Kanna, V., R.A. Olson, and H.M. Jennings, “Effects of Shrinkage and Moisture Content on the Physical Characteristics of Blended Cement Mortars,” Cement and Concrete Research, 28 [10] (1998) 1467–1477.

Olson, R.A., C.M. Neubauer, and H.M. Jennings, “Damage to the Pore Structure of Hardened Portland Cement Paste by Mercury Intrusion,” Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 80 [9] (1997) 2454–2458.

Olson, R.A., P.D. Tennis, D. Bonen, B.J. Christensen, A.R. Brough, G.-K. Sun, J.F. Young, T.O. Mason, and H.M. Jennings, “Early Containment of High-Alkaline Solution Simulating Low-Level Radioactive Waste in Blended Cement,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, 52 (1997) 223–236.

Ford, S.J., J.-H. Hwang, J.D. Shane, R.A. Olson, G.M. Moss, H.M. Jennings, and T.O. Mason, “Dielectric Amplification in Cement Pastes,” Journal of Advanced Cement-Based Materials, 5 [2] (1997) 41–48.

Bakharev, T., A.R. Brough, R.H. Kirkpatrick, L.J. Struble, J.F. Young, R.A. Olson, P.D. Tennis, D. Bonen, H.M. Jennings, T.O. Mason, S. Sahu, and S. Diamond, “Durability of Cement Stabilized Low Level Wastes,” pp. 350–357 in Mechanisms of Chemical Degradation of Cement-Based Systems, MRS Symposium Proceedings, Fall 1995, ed. K.L. Scrivener and J.F. Young, E&FN Spon, London (1997).

Bonen, D., R.A. Olson, P.D. Tennis, H.M. Jennings, and T.O. Mason, “Solidification/Stabilization of Simulated Alkaline Non-Vitrifiable Low-Level Radioactive Waste by Early Formation of Carbonate Bearing AFm and AFt Phases,” pp. 374–383 in Mechanisms of Chemical Degradation of Cement-Based Systems, MRS Symposium Proceedings, Fall 1995, ed. K.L. Scrivener and J.F. Young, E&FN Spon, London (1997).

Olson, R.A., B.J. Christensen, R.T. Coverdale, S.J. Ford, G.M. Moss, E.J. Garboczi, H.M. Jennings, and T.O. Mason, “Interpretation of the Impedance Response of Cement Paste Via Computer Modelling: Part III — Microstructural Analysis of Frozen Cement Paste,” Journal of Materials Science, 30 (1995) 5078–5086.

Christensen, B.J., M.C. Garci, R.A. Olson, and H.M. Jennings, “Chemistry and Structure of Hydration Products,” pp. 25–50 in Cements Research Progress 1994, The American Ceramic Society — Cements Division, ed. L. Struble (1994).

Olson, R.A, “Microstructural Analysis of Freezing Cement Paste Using Impedance Spectroscopy,” M.S. Thesis, Northwestern University, (1994).

Christensen, B.J., R.T. Coverdale, R.A. Olson, S.J. Ford, E.J. Garboczi, H.M. Jennings, and T.O. Mason, “Impedance Spectroscopy of Hydrating Cement-Based Materials: Measurement, Interpretation, and Application,” Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Feature Article, 77 [11] (1994) 2789–2804.

Olson, R.A., G.M. Moss, B.J. Christensen, J.D. Shane, R.T. Coverdale, E.J. Garboczi, H.M. Jennings, and T.O. Mason, “Microstructure-Electrical Property Relationships in Cement-Based Materials,” MRS Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 370 (1994) 255–264.

Goretta, K.C., N. Chen, M.T. Lanagan, W. Wu, J.P. Singh, R.A. Olson, J.L. Routbort, and R.B. Poeppel, “Sintering of Bulk High-Tc Superconductors Y-Ba-Cu-O,” Advances in Powder Metallurgy and Particulate Materials, 8 (1992) 271–279.

Phillips, J.M., S. Krause, M.T. Lanagan, R.A. Olson, P.R. Sharpe, M.L. Ray, S.E. Dorris, and K.C. Goretta, “Bi-Sr-Ca-Cu-O/Ca2CuO3 Composites,” Materials Letters, 11 [1,2] (1991) 10–13.

Robert H. Gibbons was graduated from Drury University in 1965 with a Bachelor’s Degree 
in Physics. He did graduate work in Instrumental Sciences at the Graduate Institute of Technology in Little Rock, AR where he was a Graduate Assistant for NASA (NsG-713 “Instrumental Applications of the Laser”) His Master’s thesis was “Holography Using A Pulsed Ruby Laser”. In 1976 he was awarded a doctorate of humane letters from St. Xavier’s University in Calcutta, India.

Robert taught physics at the junior high school, high school and college level. He worked for the Hughes Aircraft Company in Fullerton, CA as associate engineer; Lear-Siegler, Inc. in Anaheim, CA as head, technical publications; and Northrup-Grumman ACD in Springfied, MO as senior laboratory technician. He worked for five years for the City of Springfield Health Department as an air pollution control specialist.

Robert served in the U.S. Army (active duty and reserves) for 21.5 years, retiring at the rank of Captain. He was a Nuclear Medical Science Officer and was assigned to various bases around the country, including Edgewood Arsenal, MD and Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD where he served at staff duty officer for TECOM (Testing & Evaluation Command) requiring a SECRET clearance. He was a survey officer for the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, where he surveyed nuclear medicine and x-ray facilities at Army bases around the country. He was a plenary member of the Health Physics Society. In 1990, Robert’s unit was activated for Desert Shield/Desert Storm, where Robert was a decorated veteran of the Gulf War.

Robert was Executive Director of the Museum of the Unexplained in Reeds Spring, MO and appeared on Flame TV’s “Jane Goldman Investigates” as one of the scientists who tested Bob White’s “object” in the episode “Jane Goldman Investigates Aliens”. He lives in Springfield, MO.

UFO PHYSICAL TRACE CASES HAVING THE SAME ELEMENTS MATCH.

The Bob White metal has a high silver content not common in aluminum alloy’s. Three other cases have similar silver concentrations which to say the least is highly unusual.

There are now four UFO physical trace cases with almost identical basic elements with two having extraterrestrial readings in strontium isotope readings.

Microstructural Analysis of Samples Received from Bennie Foggin

R.Olson, L. Martins, M. Topolski

Project Notes

We received samples of aluminum from Bennie Foggin labelled “Ohio Ed’s metal sample” (hereafter labelled SM006) and “Rendlesham Forest Sample” (hereafter labelled SM007). The Ed’s metal sample was a small chunk less than about 1 cubic centimeter. The Rendlesham sample was a collection of relatively fine shavings with size on the order of 1-mm. We have no knowledge of the history of Ed’s metal specimen. We were well aware of the Rendlesham story given its significant media exposure over the last couple of decades, but have no knowledge of this particular sample or how it was collected.

Specimen Notes

Samples were mounted in epoxy, initially ground using SiC paper to reveal a cross-section of the microstructure, then polished using water-based diamond suspensions and a Buehler automatic polishing wheel. Samples were then cleaned using ethanol in an ultrasonic bath and coated with a conductive coating of Au-Pd to prepare for analysis via Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy. Samples were analysed using a Tescan Vega 3 SEM equipped with an Oxford XMax-N EDS. All images were captured in backscatter mode.

Results and Discussion

The analytical results for all spectra are included in two summary tables below. The first is provided in weight percent, the second in atomic percent. The first seven spectra (1–7) pertain to Ed’s metal analyses, and the final ten spectra (8–17) pertain to the Rendlesham analyses.

Ed’s metal

Figure 1 shows a low magnification image of the surface prepared for analysis. Sites A and B were analyzed in detail. Figure 2 is a close-up of site A, where a large section of the alloy was scanned by EDS to obtain an estimate of the average composition. This material has a fairly simple composition. The relatively low amount of silicon is likely the result of impurity, not an intentional addition. It is difficult to process aluminum (Al) with silicon (Si) and iron (Fe) contents below about 0.4 wt%. We did not see Fe at this level in spectrum 1, but did pick up a precipitate in spectrum 3 with a high Fe content, so it could be we simply did not pick up the trace Fe in spectrum 1. The magnesium (Mg) concentration of 0.35 wt% is likely an intentional addition. Mg is a very common additive in Al alloy. A small amount of oxygen (O) was pick up, likely trace amounts of oxides in the alloy resulting from processing issues. The only other element we detected at this level was silver (Ag), which is a very unusual component. Historically, Ag is associated with copper (Cu) based alloys of Al. Al-Cu alloys were highly used in WWII for aircraft, but it was discovered they suffered from stress corrosion. Ag was then used to enhance the stress corrosion resistance of these alloys. It also improves high temperature properties. We do not know what role silver might play in non-Cu bearing alloys. At a level of 1.06 wt %, this was likely added to the metal.

Figure 3 is a close-up on one of the main precipitates we observed. It also shows the location of an EDS scan of the Al matrix, plus location of where we analysed the precipitate. Note the Ag is found in the matrix material again at a level of 1.30 wt%, so it is homogenized with the Al. This suggests the Ag was added at the melt stage. In conventional Al making processes, this would be a relatively expensive step, so it is likely an intentional addition. The Mg is again present at 0.36 wt%. The precipitate shows high level of Si and Fe, likely there due to trace levels of these elements in the alloy.

Figure 4 is another analysis from site B with a different type of precipitate. Spectrum 4 again shows the Mg, but we did not pick up the Ag. There is a small amount of porosity present here and we see evidence of some type of oxide containing mostly Al with Na, Mg, Si, Cl and Ca, likely an aluminum oxide impurity that caused the porosity.

Figure 5 shows a couple other precipitates at site B. Spectrum 6 has a high oxygen content, likely an oxide impurity. Spectrum 7 has high Si and Fe content similar to precipitate observed in Figure 3, but picked up a little Ag.

Overall, we can say this specimen is not composed of a common aluminum alloy. The Ag and Mg appear to be intentionally added, whereas the Si and Fe contents are likely at impurity levels. There is also the evidence of some oxide impurities likely introduced during processing.

Rendlesham Forest

Figure 6 is a low magnification image of the cross-section of two as-received shavings. Some porosity is present, but we do not know if these were a result of mechanical and/or thermal stresses induced during the formation of these shavings, or were present in an original component from which these shavings originated. Subsequent images represent images taken from Sites A and B.

Figure 7 is a higher magnification image of Site A. The enclosed area in Figure 7 represents the area used to measure the average composition of the alloy. The Si content is relatively high at 19.47%, suggesting this alloy might have been used for casting. The Fe content is at a typical level for trace impurity. Mg and Cu levels are likely due to addition, but could be impurities.

Figure 8 is a higher magnification image of Site A revealing details of precipitates. Spectrum 9 shows results of the Al matrix, low level of Mg at 0.22 wt% and Si at 1.37 wt%. Spectrum 10 shows results of bright precipitate containing high levels of Si and Fe, but also smaller amounts of Mn and Cr. Another interesting feature of this microstructure is the slightly lighter regions dispersed through the metal matrix, as indicated by the spot denoted Spectrum 12. These are regions of Si metal contained within the Al metal matrix. It appears these regions also contain a lot of porosity, likely a result of how the silicon solidifies within the aluminum matrix as the material cools.

Figure 9 shows a close up of Site B, where we again see high concentration of Si and small amounts of Fe and Cu, similar to results found in Figure 7. But here we also see evidence of Ag again? This is confirmed in Spectrum 14 shown in Figure 10. The composition of the brighter precipitates (Spectra 15 and 16) show similar high concentration of Si and Fe with smaller amount of Fe. The composition of lighter regions represented by Spectrum 17 confirms silicon metal within aluminum matrix.

Overall we can also say this metal alloy does not represent a common aluminum alloy. The high silicon content suggests this material was used to generate a casting, as high silicon is often used to accomplish this (4000 series alloys). None we know of use Ag in any capacity.

Regarding the use of Ag, we did uncover an Apr 2010 article on the web entitled “Al-Cu-Mg-Ag Alloys” discussing research interest in this system for use in aerospace applications.

www.totalmateria.com/page.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&site+ktn&NM=240

Although Ed’s metal and Rendlesham samples are quite different, the fact we are picking up Ag in both samples, an unusual component, begs the questions,

Is Ed’s metal and Rendlesham connected in some way?

Is there a possibility for Ag contamination?

We do not think Ag contamination was a possibility in our lab, and took a very close look at Ag peaks in the spectra, so are fairly sure about the results.

Next question is the Bob White artifact also connected to both eds metal, rendlesham and the bennie foggins metal. All four have high silver (Ag) making all samples highly unusual and not common alloy’s.

LARRY CEKANDER OWNER AND LEAD PROJECTS MANAGER OF THE MUSEUM OF THE UNEXPLAINED AERIAL ANOMALIES RESEARCH TEAM, REEDS SPRING MISSOURI 417 337 4450. larryroyc@yahoo.com