heres some comments you didnt hear on the show..
this is why the other two scientist have come on board to.
Chris Ellis - the other scientist mentioned in the May 6th show. I have been following this conversation very closely. I also wanted to help answer questions about the show and the evidence.
My background: growing up I was always fascinated with the studying and analyzing things. I am a scientist by nature and nuture. I have studied the normal and in sense of a hobby I study the paranormal. I find the testimony about the paranormal to be very compelling evidence. However, the scientist in me wants more proof. I have never seen a UFO but I have family members who have. I am a scientist through and through and I demand irrefutable proof of claims. I follow the credo: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. However, I know that UFO-ology is a broad field with very little proof beyond testimony. Pictures are fuzzy and too far away and the physical evidence is sometimes too similar to known aircraft. I am a scientific skeptic. I am human and while I believe in the testimony of others, I, too, would like to have my own proof.
I have my Masters in Physics (Solid State Physics / Semiconductors), a Bachelors in Modern Languages and almost enough credit towards a degree in Math. I stopped my pursuit to my Ph.D. out of exhaustion. I really wanted to get out and get a job, too. I am like David, studying this object has rekindled my desire to continue my education.
I got involved with this story when I happened upon the Museum some years ago. I had a great conversation with Robert Gibbons about the object. The curious scientist in me wanted to know more about the data. He gave me plenty of data to study. I offered: given the concentration of elements in the object, they should focus their research on the objects semiconducting and thermal properties. I mentioned that my graduate research had been in Aluminum substrates and their semiconducting properties. I offered that they consider all this in the future research. At the time I only had a surface picture of the object and it's history. It wasn't until they sent me the full set of data that I got the bigger picture. I considered every possibility of the object through thought experiments. After studying the data and the testimony I could tell them what the object wasn't but I could not tell them what it was. When I moved I lost the data their contact information so we lost touch for a while.
In January, Bob and Robert called upon me again to talk about the data. I asked for a fresh copy of all the data since 1996 and I got a mountain of information. Part of the data is contained in Bob's book and the rest was sent to me via email. Some is on various websites and forums, too.
I poured over the data. I attacked the problem from several angles: 1) what could have resulted in the object 2) what purpose could that alloy serve 3) what did it look like before it's exposure to heat and the fall and 4) what tests are missing?
Like David, I believe in Bob's testimony. Four lie detectors tests would be hard to pass, but it can be done. Bob believes in what he saw so the question is: did he really see what he saw? I believe in the plain honesty of this research crew. If you lived in the midwest you'd know the type of folk I am talking about. We move at a different pace here. Their behavior does not match those of hoaxsters or scammers. I can smell bull and I have very keen common sense. I have my reputation as a scientist at stake here so I am not going to just cave in on the debate. I plan to tow the line of scientist and I plan to keep the research going.
My conclusions were a result of me reviewing all past data and suggesting a new round of experiments, which David performed. I gave my expert opinion to the team just as I did on TV.
Results: I said the object is an aluminum alloy of unknown source, which is definitely is. It has signs of being cast or wrought (this is corroborated). It's current form was not it's original form. The object is made up of two types of structure: the inner core, which is solid and the outer layer, which is feathery in appearance. I concur with David's assessment of the object in that the object is made up of a quasi-crystal and that the concentrations of the secondary, tertiary and other alloying metals is higher than normal for a primary alloy (the Si and Fe are in higher concentrations than possible for their respective primary phases of alloys). This is simliar to maximum soluability. Extensive tests need to be performed to study the primary, secondary and tertiary phases of this alloy. Unfortunately, some of the tests I want to run would actually destroy the object. See, samples need to be taken from all over the object because it's obvious to the science team that the object is heavily altered and could have pockets of secondary alloys. I will tell you that MIT found very high concentrations of Uranium, Thorium, Erbium (for commercial aluminum) and trace amounts of some other unusual elements. I firmly believe this object was made purposefully and that it's composition was not by accident. I also believe that the objects physical properties would be at their greatest performance at very low temperature and pressures. At low temperatures, this alloy could have had superconductive properties. However, like I said, it has been permanently altered by high temperatures.
David and I have maintained, always, that we don't know how this object was made nor do we know if it came from EBE's. We do know that it's an alloy of extraordinary source and composition and that for 1985, it's very amazing. We're not alone in the scientific community in this belief and we also believe many more tests must be performed.
The future: we plan to run a series of tests that will confirm past test results. We plan to study the objects alloy properties, it's strength and hardness, it's electrical and magnetic properties, it's density, the objects radioactive properties and it's composition. All these tests have been ran (some have been ran almost 10 times). I plan to work with some commercial alloy manufacturers to perform the alloy studies. Some of the compositional studies may have to be performed by a lab in Germany (like some have suggested).
I am here to answer questions and recieve your constructive input. I am not here to convince you of anything. And I am not here to get flamed by anyone. You have to research this yourself and arrive at the conclusion you need to be at. I will say that this is the most amazing thing I've ever studied and the testimony is truly unique.