Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/newspostings/1601-1700/1614

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-20 | 5.4 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!xara.net!agate.xara.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!usenet
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Skeptic fallacies, a select few (was Re: Falsifying the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 06:56:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <4qasja$[e-mail]>
References: <4pi2p3$[e-mail]> <4pio1c$[e-mail]> <4q27h7$[e-mail]> <4q3m4n$[e-mail]> <4q47u7$[e-mail]> <4q4crb$[e-mail]> <4q5kio$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: laputa.hip.berkeley.edu
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.alien.visitors:88530 alt.paranet.ufo:53876 alt.alien.research:26248 sci.skeptic:72853

Michael Carlin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>[e-mail] wrote[IN PART]:

>> There's a lot more on the testing of Fragments 2 and 3 in the United States.
>> But I think the point is clear.  The Ubatuba fragments were strong physical
>> evidence of metal of nonconventional origin.  No lab on earth manufactured 100%
>> pure magnesium in 1957, as found in Fragment 1, and certainly not with a density
>> the same as a rare pure isotope.
>>
>> >  Another tested by the
>> >: Condon Commission lacked trace elements inherent in the purification process
>> >: used by Dow Chemical (the only lab that could have manufactured magnesium that
>> >: pure).


>   I'm not trying to pick nits here, Mr. Rudiak, and I hope I am correct in that all
>three of the above statements are attributable to you, but these statements differ
>qualitatively.

>  What was the situation back then?  1) No lab could produce the metal. Which would
>imply that the manufacturing process necessary was not invented yet, and would be in
>the future.   2) No lab did produce the metal. Which implies that it was possible,
>but nobody bothered or it was cost prohibitive.

According to Dr. Olavo Fontes (who obtained the fragments from a Brazilian
columnist and had them tested) in his analysis in the Lorenzen book ("The Great
Flying Saucer Hoax), absolutely pure metal wasn't possible until the invention
of zone refining by American metallurgist Walter Pfann a few years before the
Ubatuba case.  At the time of Ubatuba, this had been used to produce germanium
and molybdenum of almost absolute purity, and possibly also iron and titanium
(and later, of course, the pure silicon needed for manufacturing computer
chips).  But the process had not be applied to other metals, including
magnesium, because of technical properties not yet solved.

Magnesium could be purified back then to 99.9% purity, but it was a complex and
expensive operation.  Fontes states that the purest magnesium ever produced
still had impurities that could be detected by spectrographic analysis.  But
absolutely no impurities (except for the coating of magnesium hydroxide) could
be found in the spectrographic analysis of Fragment 1.

If Fragment 1 was indeed pure isotope Mg(26), as the density measurement
possibly suggested, then further complications arise.  Probably the isotopes of
magnesium could be separated by the same methods employed in the Manhatten
Project to separate uranium isotopes, but this would be an extraordinarily
expensive operation..  I don't know if anybody has ever done this, at least in
the quantities needed to produced Fragment 1 (about 3/4 inch long).

Unless someone can prove otherwise, no one knows of any lab that could have
produced this fragment.

>3)Dow Lab could produce the metal.
> Which implies they were capable, but their end product differed in analysis.

Dow Lab had never produced anything like Fragment 1.  Their purest magnesium was
purer than Fragment 3, tested by the Condon Commission.  But Fragment 3 was
anomalous in lacking certain elements present in Dow pure magnesium.  Traces of
mercury are present, e.g., because of its use in the vacuum pumps used in the
purification process.  Silicon is also inherent in the purification process.
Calcium is extraordinarily difficult to remove and was always present in trace
amounts.  But Fragment 3 apparently lacked both silicon and calcium.  These
latter points were made by Dr. David Saunders, also of the Condon Commission,
and Dr. James Harder, prof. of mechanical engineering at U.C. Berkeley.

Dr. Roy Craig, who was in charge of the analysis of Fragment 3 for the Condon
Commission, noted that the fragment had a high concentration of strontium, not
ordinarily found in purified magnesium, but then said Dow had whipped up a batch
at some time with the same concentration.  However, he never even discussed the
other anomalies in the trace elements mentioned above, and never even presented
the lab evidence that Fragment 1 was 100% pure.  He simply dismissed the claim,
since Fragment 3 wasn't pure.  This was simply rotten science and logic on his
part.

>  If either of the last is true, then far more proof would be required to state that
>the metal could not be manufactured on Earth, no?

This is the best I can answer your questions.  I'm no metallurgical expert.  But
from everything I've read the technology to manufacture these fragments was not
available back in 1957.