SUNlite vol.1 n.2

8/14/2019 SUNlite vol.1 n.2

1/29

Volume 1 Number 2 July-August 2009

Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs

SUN LitE

Arthur C. Clarke


2/29

Thanks or the commentsIt did not take long ater my rst issuewas posted or me to start receivinge-mails. Many were congratulatory andI appreciate those. I just hope this news-

letter can live up to the expectationssome seem to have.

Others did not e-mail me directly butmade some rather unpleasant comments

elsewhere. To be honest, the opinions othose people mean very little to me. I

they are not interested in my opinion, orthe opinions o the others, who wrotehere, then that is their right. They can

continue to make un o me and ridiculewhat I have to say but they are still going

to be stuck in their UFOlogical rut whenit is all said and done.

My intent in this newsletter has nothingto do with replacing Phil Klass or being a

Klass wannabe. The name o the news-

letter was chosen in honor o Phil, whomI enjoyed communicating with in his lateryears. Others share a similar opinion. So,

or those who believe I want to be Phil,you are mistaken. I just want to presenta orum or skeptics to comment on the

latest in UFOlogy. I that was not clear inmy rst issue, I hope it is clear now.

Peter Brookesmith added some interest-

ing insights about how skeptics shouldnot only expose alse claims but also

examine how and why some o the alse

claims come about. I dont consider my-sel to be a psychologist, which one has

to be in some cases. However, I think Isee where Peter is coming rom. Like I

told Peter, it is hard to change ones ap-proach overnight. Hopeully, we will tryand work towards that goal. The Duke o

Mendoza has given us a start with an ar-ticle this month.

Moving along, I noticed that Robert

Hastings ound a orum to level somepotshots at SUNlite. I was called manythings by Robert and I just have to point

towards the documented exchange onthe Bad Astronomy and Universe Today

(BAUT) orum to set the record straight.I will let anyone willing to look at the

thread UFOs and Nukes to make uptheir minds on what transpired. I took apage in this issue to address the claims

by Robert in the Battle o Hastings.

In addition to the various e-mails, Istarted to receive some e-mail news bul-

letins rom UFO Updates . I suppose itmeant that I was now considered activein UFOlogy and deserved ree news re-

ports. I asked whoever was sending theemails to terminate them, which they did.

There is absolutely nothing that comesrom Updates that is earth shattering. I

see no reason to clutter my mailbox withnews I am already aware o through oth-

er sources.

Lastly, my newsletter seems to havereached the internet-less Supreme Com

mander (SCDR) in Key West, Florida. I received a snail mail letter that was cordia

and promised a review o SUNlite (ateonly one issue) in an upcoming Sauce

Smear. As expected, I was reerred to asa debunker. I eel no reason to question

the opinion o somebody who enjoys

such a loty title! He also complained spent to much time on Roswell. Standby

SCDR, because this issue is ull o RoswellI apologize but there are other articles in

this issue as well, which you may (or maynot) enjoy.

Finally, Matt and I commented aboutRobert Todd and Phil Klass again. I dont

intend to keep writing about them buMatts article was late or last issue and

I elt a need to add my two cents. It istime to move on ater this issue so bea

with us or this issue.

P.S. For those who want me to be more

open-minded, I suggest they watch theollowing video clip!
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/78952-ufos-nukes.htmlhttp://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/78952-ufos-nukes.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXIhttp://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/78952-ufos-nukes.htmlhttp://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/78952-ufos-nukes.html


3/29

When I was contacted by SUNLITEwith a request I pen somethingabout my riendship with the late Robert(Bob) Todd, I was enthralled at the oppor-

tunity to put some o my recollections to

paper or a better understanding o thishistorical UFOlogical gure. Not only or

the enlightenment o uture readers, but,or todays UFO-bus and paranormal en-

thusiasts as well.

As much disliked skeptics and dreadeddebunkers, both Bob Todd and Phil Klasswere considered to have been arch-ene-

mies o the progressive UFO movement,simply because they dared to objectively

question the blossoming doctrine o thenew age saucer myth as espoused by

a throng o sel-appointed experts andleaders o the dwindling UFO groups -which not only believed in horrid govern-

ment conspiracies and witness silencingas realities, but, embrace the notion o

requent visitation by space crat rom ahost o other worlds.

By progressive UFO movement I am re-erring to ying saucer ans, bloggers, a-

cionados, group members and assortedexperts on the many reported sightings,

crashes and abduction stories. I am NOTreerring to the serious study o Unidenti-

ed Aerial Phenomena such as Wim VanUtrecht o Belgium painstakingly does,which is not the same thing at all, al-

though many o the UFO subculture tendto mistakenly think it is.

Even to the point that at the time o Bob

and Phils passing, some individuals eltully justied and compelled to write re-buttals to the eulogies I had written in

memory o these men. To be sure, some

o the writers o these venomous rebut-tals were at one time or another caughtup in ailed debate with Bob or Phil. But,

my eulogies were based on my memo-ries, personal experiences and opiniono these men as human beings, objective

researchers and deenders o historicalact.

So, while I havent a personal axe to grind

with the many sel-appointed experts oUFOlogy. I do question their motivations,

lack o character and morality with their

continuing assaults on the memory oBobTodd, Phil Klass, Donald Menzel and

Karl Pock. Thereore, I oer these recol-lections as an opinion piece on two won-

derul individuals whom I ound to be

rather exceptional, candid in their questsor objectivity, accuracy, clarity and truth.

Six commodities which I eel tend to bein very scarce supply within much o the

contemporary saucer community andpopular UFO literature.

Bob Todd died o cancer beore reachingty-ve years o age. He was a very pri-

vate man (much like Martin Kottmeyer)and I came to appreciate Bob as a person

o considerable intelligence and goodhumor. He could have easily been a very

brilliant attorney.

Bob worked as a night-shit baker and

once while on a smoke break, standingon the company lading dock, he wit-

nessed an unidentiable airborne objectin the evening sky, Bob told me about his

experience and wondered what it mighthave been (?) Bob had a great sense ohumor, and I think humor was the bond-

ing agent o our riendship. Here is an ex-ample o a couple o the spin-os on the

politically incorrect Dumb Blonde Jokesone may read on the dreaded net, these

were typical o our telephonic nonsense:

1. Two MUFONITES were sitting on a

park bench one evening in Philadelphia,Pa. One ellow looked up at the night-

time sky as quipped Gee, I wonder iRoswell is urther away than the moon.

The other ellow just rolled his eyes andsnidely replied Duhhh, ya cant see Ro-swell rom here can ya!

2. Two elderly emale CUFOS membersonce attended a UFO conerence andater arriving at the gathering early to

insure obtaining good seats close tothe auditoriums stage (to better seeand hear the speakers)Anyway, as the

convention presenters went on and on,one gal leaned to whisper in her riends

ear that the speaker presently on thestage was rather long-winded and very

boring. The other woman nodded inagreement, and said with a little giggle,

that her buttocks was tingling and had

Reections and Memories o two UFOlogical Legends

Matthew Graeber

obviously allen to sleep. Her riend replied I knowI heard it snoring!

As one can clearly see, these jokes wererather broad-based and did not mention

any individuals by name, in act, duringour phone conversations, I do not recal

Bob ever lambasting anyone who was aRoswell promoter, believer or, proclaimed

eyewitness to the alleged saucer crash.

Bob may have groaned slightly at the

mention o Kevin Randle, Don SchmittStanton Friedman and Tom Carey Actu

ally, the unspoken inside joke was that doing so was completely unnecessary, since

the experts and witnesses had alreadycontradicted and discredited themselvesmany times over. Some o our conversa-

tions were steeped in tidbits o trashand missives rom the masses nonsense

which we had read in Jim Moseleys Saucer Smear. The back-biting, shin-kicking

and eye-gouging letters rom UFOlogisto all stripes were always good a chuckle

While Bob Todd could be somewhatblunt, abrasive and intolerant with oth-

ers displays o ignorance, shoddy UFOresearching, lying and unbridled rumo

mongering - Phi Klass was a bit more dip-lomatic in his assessments on the veracityo saucer experts, their ollowers and as-

sorted online deenders o abduction sto

ries and saucer crash tales. Phil and thenpopular abductologist Budd Hopkinsoten butted heads, and some o those

stories are legendary and quite humorous. Phil once told me, he elt most UFObelievers were basically Well intended

olks. He did not bother to elaborate onthe many sel-promoters and charlatans

who oten assailed him.

Like I, Phil started out as a UFO believe- that was, until he looked into some de-

tails about a book he had read (Incident

Robert Todd was one o UFOlogys mostrespected researchers.


4/29

motion picture Fire in the sky) Phil said,and Im paraphrasing here Remember

not to mention Waltons brush with thelaw or his no contest plea - as his record

has been expunged and no longer exists- So, you cant bring up his past transgres-

sionsbesides, his sidekick, Rogers mightpoke you in the nose. Phil sent me an au-

tographed copy o his book UFO Abduc-

tion, a dangerous game he inscribed itwith a simple To Matt Graeber, May You

Be Spared! A KLASSIC with an economyo words! There is so much more to my

memories o these UFOlogical giants. Iam honored to have known them and to

My own personal interactions withRobert Todd and Phil Klass havemore to do with exchanging e-mails withthem. There was some correspondence

but I never met the two men in person.

I remember Phil being nice enough tokeep sending me issues o SUN eventhough I had not paid my subscription. I

simply orgot to send in my money. Atera ew issues, he added a note to my news-

letter asking, Are you still interested?. Ipromptly sent in my subscription as well

as the next years unds.

Phil was also very helpul in sending me

old issues o SUN when I requested them.When I oered to pay him or them, he

added a little note stating he would notaccept any cash and, instead, would not

mind i I sent him 10,000,0000 1-centstamps! I assumed he was joking. Fromwhat others have written about Phil, they

probably would have elt he was serious.Phils humor could be out o touch with

some people.

While Phil was probably considered UFOl-ogys Satan, Robert Todd may have beencompared to UFOlogys Benedict Arnold.

From what I have read o his research

over the years, Todd was most instrumen-tal in obtaining some o UFOlogys mostprecious documents via FOIA. For this

he should be commended. However, hiseorts with regards to Roswell has pret-ty much placed him in the traitor role

because he chose to turn his intellect to-wards exposing the rauds and allacies

o the Roswell case. Roberts interactionwith me came early in my understand-

ing o Roswell. I had contacted him aboutpossibly getting copies o his Cowop

quarterly and subscribing to it. Roberthad ceased publishing this newsletter by

then but he did send me an e-mail copyo the Marcel issue, which I was most in

terested in at the time. We exchangede-mails over the years and I ound his per

sonality interesting. Bob was always willing to share inormation and opinions.

I guess people will remember Robert Toddor the intolerance he had or various per

sonalities in UFOlogy. He was most willingto let me know what he elt in our e-mai

discussions. His greatest venom was reserved or people who attacked ProessoCharles Moore. To Robert, Moores ac

complishments ar overshadowed anything these UFOlogists had ever done.

Did that make Bob a bad person? It is

hard or me to pass that kind o judgement. During my years in the US Navy, recall expressing similar opinions abou

ofcers, ellow chies, and junior enlistedpersonnel. It was oten a sign o rustra

tion in my inability to get the desired results. Perhaps I have mellowed ater my

retirement because I now look back andwonder i I was a bit too harsh and mighthave approached things a bit dierently

Maybe in later years, Todd elt the same

way. Then again, maybe not.

I miss both men and I honestly think that

there are many in UFOlogy who miss themas well. UFOlogists seems to always needgood scapegoats to shit attention away

rom their glorious ailures. I guess Toddand Klass were doing something right to

earn that honor.

- Tim Printy

have had them consider me a riend.at Exeter) which caused him to questionthe reliability o some witnesses and the

UFO author as well. Being the directoro a Philadelphia-based pro-UFO Report

and Inormation Center (UFORIC) I cameto consider Phil as a mentor and riend.

He was in act, UFOlogys Rabbi - Not inthe spiritual sense o the word - but, as a

teacher and advisor to those who would

listen. Phil was a true modern-day renais-sance man and his knowledge on the

history o the American Civil War was re-markable as well. Few in UFOlogy knew

he designed and helped construct theelectronic battleeld board which is still

on display at the Gettysburg battleeldmuseum.

Phil was absolutely brilliant, and had amarvelous way o perorming laser-like

surgery on the spoken and written wordo saucer experts and abductologists

whom oten dreaded interacing withhim. Watching Phil in action was a les-son in verbal dissection. His ew pointed

questions and impish twinkling eyes weredelightul treat or those who knew him

as Lovable Uncle Phil. I recall his kissinga plaster bust o an alien perched upon

Budd Hopkins reserved seat at a Forteanconerence in London. Mr. Hopkins hadailed to appear and was allegedly at

an art museum picking up on modernart trends in Europe. What a hoot No,

make that cluck-cluck!

Phil had a wonderully earthy side too;and once said IF he were not alreadyvery happily married, while spending

a night with the lovely abductee LindaCortile, he MIGHT be inclined to believe

just about anything she told him justor that night o course! Phil had also

shared a taxi with R. Leo Sprinkle andLinda Cortile (Neopolitano) during a NewYork UFO conerence. While seated in the

cab, some small talk broke out and Phil

told Linda she had obviously become thequeen bee o abduction. Quickly realizinghe may have said the wrong thing to her,

Phil sheepishly awaited her reply whichwas Oh Phil, thank you very much! I Imnot mistaken Mrs. Neopolitanos e-mail

address is honeybee@ XXXXXX

I also recall another time when Phil o-ered sage advice concerning my up-

coming appearance on a Philadelphia TVprogram (just prior to the release o the


5/29

Whos blogging

UFOs?Kevin Randles Dierent Perspec-

tive blog continues to ramble on

about Roswell. As always, those com-

ments are usually sent to the Roswellcorner. Kevins other great soliloquy o-

cused on Science Fiction (SF) ans andUFOs. I have read many SF books over

the years and it sounds like my ellow

readers have similar skep-tical attitudes towards

UFOs. I am also awarethat many o the major SF

writers have very skepti-cal opinions about UFOs.

Arthur C. Clarke and IsaacAsimov being two o themost outspoken critics o

UFOs being alien space-ships. Randle talks about

how he was able to getsome SF ans/writers to

understand there is goodevidence. Sigh.....to himthe evidence is good. To

others, the evidence ishighly subjective. It sounds like Randle

had about as much eect as i he weretalking to an amateur astronomy club

meeting.

Frank Warrens UFO Chronicles

decided that SUNlite is walking in

Phil Klass ootsteps. Well, they can

think whatever they desire. I gave per-mission to run the section he posted

and that is OK with me. I just hope thatpeople dont think I want to be Philsreplacement.

Frank also posted Hastings rebuttal

to Kingston Georges Big Sur article,which took him over three months to

write. As I expected, it is mostly a re-hash o his IUR article with some o hisbook excerpts thrown in to lengthen

the piece. He made the same old ac-

cusations and tired arguments. Blah...Blah...Blah... ZZZZZZ. I address this inmy Battle o Hastings article on p. 11.

Warren then decided to post a typi-cal Stanton Friedman diatribe that is

the usual mantra he repeats over andover. It is more to convince the aith-

ul because he does not appear tobe convincing many scientists. Ho...

hum....Stan, do you have anything newto say?

In other UFO news, we discover that Den-

nis Balthasar has suddenly realized he hadbeen ooled or over a decade. Balthasar

went to Oklahoma to interview a Roswellwitness. He was intercepted by somesecret agents and never got to talk to his

witness. Dennis was scared and worriedabout being harmed because he dared to

question the greatest secret never kept.When I read his story long ago, I thought

it was all a bit melodramatic and suspect-ed a hoax. Since I was not there, I cantsay. I am sure Dennis thought otherwise.

Anyway, Balthasar discovered it was alla hoax perormed by some gentlemen

and his wie. I guess they did it or kicks.I am surprised they were not called evil

debunkers. However, there was no evilgovernment involved.

The De Void blog continues to pan-

der to UFO listeners. I ound it amusingthat he seemed to eel that the disclo-sure idea o improving the economy,

health care, the environment, etc. wasa bunch o nonsense. I am glad we canagree on something.

Cox was the Blog that rst told every-

body about Tony Bragalias great Ro-swell revelations. This is addressed in my

Roswell article on page 7. It looks likeCox, once again, has shown that he will

believe anything without doing any real

research. Isnt Cox supposed to be an

investigative reporter?

In another item, Cox gave a link to aUFO video rom the Mexico city solar

eclipse. He points towards the shape-shiting eect o the UFO. Once again,

Cox ails as an investigative reporter. I

examined these videos longago and most, i not all, show

the planet Venus. Most othe motion, shape-shiting,

and eects have to do withthe eects o the camera

and operator.

Magonias blog had some

rather interesting news.

Their magazine Magonia is

no longer going to be pub-lished. I never subscribed to

the magazine but have readmany o their articles on lineand the Magonia supple-

ments. According to theblog, they elt their work was done be-

cause it saw the demise o UFO orga-nizations and magazines. Their eorts

are to be commended. It appears theirblog will continue with plenty o bookreviews.

Kentaro Moris Forgetomori blog

mentioned SUNlite. He asked iI wouldnt mind him putting it on

Iscribe. Now you can nd SUNlitethere as well as my website! Huzzah!

The Bad Astronomer, Phil Plait,

wrote about Edgar Mitchells old

news. Phil correctly notes that, justbecause he is an astronaut, does not

make him right especially when he hasno evidence to back up his claim.

Phil also commented about a recent

Popular Mechanics article concerningNASA UFO videos. The article alreadyhas set o various UFO blogs with all

sorts o arguments based on the STS-48 video. Phils commentary is whatyou expect and I agree with his obser-

vations. Trying to turn ice particles intoalien spaceships is just wishul think-

ing.

The UFO Examiner has quite the list-ing o UFO reports. He even now runs

a UFO Trafc report. I guess there are

Hot topics and varied opinions
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/http://www.theufochronicles.com/http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?CATEGORY=BLOG32http://pelicanist.blogspot.com/http://forgetomori.com/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/http://www.examiner.com/x-2363-UFO-Examinerhttp://www.examiner.com/x-2363-UFO-Examinerhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/http://forgetomori.com/http://pelicanist.blogspot.com/http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?CATEGORY=BLOG32http://www.theufochronicles.com/http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/


6/29

other report rom decades ago. 1963

to be exact.

A satellite, a hoax, a possible meteor/7.space junk. No specic satellite is

identied and no verication is made

or the meteor/space junk.

I the USAF had oered any o these expla-nations, I am sure they would be laughed

at by UFO proponents. Put a MUFON la-bel on them and they are acceptable. It

sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

The idea o listing a whole bunch o mys-

terious events that are suspect reports re-ally does not say much. Maybe the Exam-

iner should wait until the investigationsare complete prior to publishing UFO re-

ports. At the apparent rate investigationsare being conducted/evaluated, he mightnot have much to write about!

The UFO examiner also published some

compelling UFO video clips. One comesrom Kecksburg country where the wit-

ness recorded some moving lights onemorning. There was no noise rom theUFO but the lights looked a lot like an air-

plane with an anti-collision strobe. I amglad the UFOs conorm to FAA regulations

so they will not collide with our aircratand crash.

Another video clip came rom a sightingon May 20, when a gentlemen in Horn

Lake, Mississippi recorded some lightsin the sky and posted them on Youtube.

Anyone amiliar with the Phoenix lightsvideos, would notice the similarity. I exam-

ined some o the details and determinedthe lights were possibly to the southeasto the camera assuming the trafc in the

video is along Goodman road. I the road

was Burlington Blvd, it was to the north-east. The Columbus 3 Military OperatingArea (MOA) was 40 miles to the southeast,

which could imply ares i there was ac-tivity that evening. I it was to the north-east, we could be talking about landing

lights or the airport. Memphis is a Fed-Exhub and the time described is when the

normal heavy Fed-Ex trafc or the eve-ning begins. Where are those STAR teams

when you need them?

There was also an interesting sighting o

a UFO chasing the ISS. I address this onpage 15.

Reality uncovered gave some guide-

lines or uncovering a hoax. I doubtUFOlogists are going to bother to read it.

Ater all, everyone knows that hoaxes areobvious (unless you are Bill Birnes).

The Phoenix UFO examiner seems to beconused. For some reason he elt those

that died pursuing UFOs were excludedrom Memorial day celebrations. All o

them were active duty members in theUS military. All members o the military

who died while serving are rememberedon Memorial day. It does not matter ithey were chasing UFOs, enemy planes,

or were perorming normal duties thatdid not involve enemy re. My ellow

submariners rom Scorpion and Thresheron eternal patrol are remembered or

their sacrice even though they did notght in any shooting war. It is interest-ing to note that the men who died in

the Maury Island incident died becauseo what was probably a hoax. I it was a

hoax, they died needlessly.

Several Blogs posted a cool looking

UFO video rom a warehouse security

camera in Sarapul in Russia. The event

transpired on May 22 around 3AM. It isinteresting to note that about the same

time, a Russian Soyuz-2.1a rocket waslaunched rom the Plesetsk Cosmo-

drome. Photographs and videos o thelaunch as seen in Moscow and Kazan areavailable on the web. They look extreme-

ly similar to the video rom Sarapul. Thelaunch was at 2153 GMT, which equates

to 0253 local time or Sarapul (the videowas taken around 3AM). The title states

(possibly created by Michael Cohen) thatdebunkers will hate this video. I loved itbecause it was another shining example

o sensationalist UFOlogy not doing a

simple check to see i it might be a rocketlaunch.

The Denver UFO examiner reports

Stephen Greer is coming to town! JePeckman tells everyone that Greer is talk-

ing to senior members o a G7 country sothey can contact the ETs causing UFO

reports. One has to wonder what sizeashlights he gave them. My guess is this

is another case o Greer exaggerating.

And the beat goes on..............

so many reports that pilots need a trafc

report so they can avoid those congestedregions o the sky!

The Examiner mentions that many o

these reports will have natural/man made

solutions and he will update his blogwhen MUFON comes up with a solution.

I am curious as to what the percentagerates or solving cases is with MUFON? By

mid-June, I had seen him publish manyraw reports but only seven completed in-

vestigations! The conclusions were:

The witness saw an unknown aerial1.

vehicle . This with no independentverication o the event! There is no

reason to conclude it was a vehicle.It is just unidentied or unknown.

Lightning was another conclusion2.even though we have no conrma-

tion. The observation did sound likelightning but it really is hard to pin-

point such an explanation. I dontknow why anyone bothered with

this report anyway. It was just a asho light.

A dirigible, which, again, had no con-3.rmation. I the investigator could

report that a dirigible was in the areao the sky at the time, I would be

more willing to accept the explana-tion.

Insufcient inormation with the4.possibility o it being Apollo 10! This

sighting was reported our decadesater the event with a vague recol-

lection o sometime in the springo 1968! The idea that it could havebeen Apollo 10 seems highly unlikely

based on the description. The inves-

tigator seems to think Apollo 10 wasvisible to the naked eye even when itwas not in earth orbit (at least that is

the impression he gives).

Aircrat landing lights. This seemed5.

a reasonable conclusion but onewould think that an aircrat ight

number would have been obtainedwhich could positively identiy the

observation.

A helicopters windows! This is an-6.

Whos blogging UFOs? (Contd)
http://www.realityuncovered.net/index.phphttp://www.examiner.com/x-3766-Phoenix-UFO-Examiner~y2009m5d25-Memorial-Day-tribute-missing-to-those-lost-in-UFO-questhttp://www.allnewsweb.com/page6876879.phphttp://www.allnewsweb.com/page6876879.phphttp://www.allnewsweb.com/page6876879.phphttp://www.examiner.com/x-2024-Denver-UFO-Examinerhttp://www.examiner.com/x-2024-Denver-UFO-Examinerhttp://www.allnewsweb.com/page6876879.phphttp://www.allnewsweb.com/page6876879.phphttp://www.allnewsweb.com/page6876879.phphttp://www.examiner.com/x-3766-Phoenix-UFO-Examiner~y2009m5d25-Memorial-Day-tribute-missing-to-those-lost-in-UFO-questhttp://www.realityuncovered.net/index.php


7/29

The Roswell

cornerA double standard or skeptics?

Kevin Randle has been talking about

a double standard when it comesto witness testimonies. According to

Randle, skeptics are supposed to doubtCharles Moore as much as we are sup-

posed to doubt any Roswell witness talk-ing about a crashed spaceship. Randle

seems to miss the point o why peoplequestion a stories validity. I somebodysays they saw a witch on a broom crash

into the ground at Roswell, would Randleeel that their testimony is just as valid as

somebody who reported an alien space-ship crashed? I know o nobody making

this claim but is an example o the stan-dards o probability. In weighing thestory o Charles Moore, we have some in-

teresting testimony that seems to agreewith what he has stated.

The Marcels described purple g-

ures on the beams. Brazel describedtape with purple gures on it in 1947.Even Loretta Proctor mentioned

the tape. Charles Moore, and a ewothers, stated they used this kind

o tape on the reectors they used.Granted these people stated this a-

ter all the stories were available buthis description is plausible and thedrawings o the ML-307s describe

using tape.

Brazel reported nding debris thatseemed to indicate something

larger than a single weather balloonand radar reector. Moore was parto the team that was launching bal-

loon ights not ar rom the Foster

Ranch, which had multiple weatherballoons and they had used thesespecic radar reectors beore.

Marcel posed or pictures with somedebris that shows the type o reec-

tors and balloons used by Mooreand the NYU team.

A ight/cluster o balloons was

launched on the 4th o June, 1947that was apparently never recov-

ered. This ight was launched on

a date that would propel the bal-loons towards the northeast and

the weather conditions on that dateCOULD HAVE caused the balloons

to land on the Foster Ranch. Moorewas part o the team that launched

those balloons.

Now, lets examine the known specics

about the Roswell crashed spaceshipstory.

An alien spaceship crashed in the

desert north o Roswell and Brazelound some o the debris (and may-

be some bodies). No documenta-tion in 1947 supports this claim. Nophotographs, pieces, contemporary

documents, or anything else hasever shown these stories to be true.

Alien bodies and debris was trans-

ported by numerous aircrat out oRoswell to various locations in theUS. No documents, photographs, or

anything else exists demonstratingthis was true.

A great number o people on and

o base were aware o the crash andwhat was ound. No documents,private diaries (that can be veried

as authentic and written in 1947),letters o complaint written in the

1940s, private letters written in the1940s, personal photographs, or

anything else indicating that some-thing extraordinary happened atRoswell in 1947 exists.

Not everyone on base and in town

agrees that something extraordi-nary happened at Roswell that sum-

mer o 1947.

When examining these issues and weigh-

ing the probabilities, one can make the

ollowing statement, It is ar more likelythat Charles Moores cluster o balloonswith possible reectors attached caused

the debris eld at the Foster Ranch thanan alien spaceship. This is why the state-ments o Charles Moore are more likely

to be accepted as actual than the state-ments o all the story tellers who claim

they saw aliens or alien debris. Randleneeds to provide evidence that supports

these stories told by aging witnesses,who, ater several decades o silence,

suddenly remembered the events o

1947 as being something extraordinary.

New Roswell parts ound?

The end o April put an interestingemail in my in box linking me to astory rom the Roswell Daily Record. Apparently, somebody has been oraging

through all the Sci-Fi channels debris

bags and ound something they did notunderstand using an electron micro

scope. The statement said it was Aluminum silicate, which can not be naturally

ound at the Foster Ranch. O courseman has been living in the area or many

years. It could easily have come rom manand not something alien. In one articlethe group analyzing the piece claimed to

have run out o money and they desirepublic assistance in analyzing the piece

Now that is amazing. Robert Bigelow hapromised millions o dollars to MUFON

to investigate this exact thing. The SCIFI channel, who organized the dig to getthe pieces out o the eld, is supposedly

unding this kind o research. Finally, theFund or UFO research (FUFOR) has mon

ey or this kind o research. Now UFOlogists are pleading or money to analyze a

simple piece o metal? I people are going to give them money, I would ask oreceipts and promises to have the mate-

rial actually tested because it sounds likea scam to me. I am not going to hold my

breath or any startling revelations.

Only time will tell i this is the smokinggun so desired by UFO proponents. Witha request or people to give them money

to study the piece o metal, it soundslike this one is going to be a dud as well

What was it that P.T. Barnum said? Thismay be appropriate here. It will probably

end up in the Whatever happened to...column in a ew years.

Ramey memo non-update

Kevin Randle wrote about the Rameymemo in his blog. His entry ocuseon the security aspect o the memo andhow unlikely it would be that Rameywould allow such a highly classied mes

sage (assuming it is one) to be exposed toa photograph. As a military man, I agree

with him but that does not mean it is impossible, just highly unlikely.

Needless to say, his commentary drew the

typical excessively long-winded response


8/29

rom David Rudiak in the comments sec-tion. Among Rudiaks words were the

accusations that Randle was taking on a

debunker mentality. I could only watchin amazement as the comments in this

blog entry grew in number and, as al-ways, nothing was accomplished.

It has been almost seven years since the

memo suraced as a smoking gun onthe Sci-Fi channel. It had already beennews in the UFO eld or several years be-

ore this. As I noted last issue, I have seenno urther progress on determining what

type o document it is or what it appearsto state. I am sure David Rudiak and oth-

ers eel the memo can be clearly read butthey havent convinced anybody outsidetheir little circle. Being able to convince

others with the evidence is what counts.Maybe that study proposed by Houran

and Randle needs to be done. It is up tothose making the claim to make it hap-

pen.

Test dummy ocer talks....again

L

t. Col. (ret) Roy Madson was inter-

viewed by Anthony Bragalia and hetold roughly the same story he stated

back in 1997 about the USAF report. It isnot very big news but some o the com-ments inspired me to write the article

Whos the Dummy? on page 16 .

More incorrect Facts

Newsblaze writer Dale Human wrotethat the Roswell UFO crash was realbased on two simple FACTS. They were

that the US military reported the crash

as genuine and the other was that theychanged the story one day later. Both ohis FACTS are incorrect. The press release

mentioned no crash. It only mentionedthe recovery o the remains o the discwhich landed on the ranch. This story

was changed only hours later and not aday. Human could not even get his two

simple FACTS correct, which means therest o his article is probably as poorly re-

searched and written.

The Roswellcorner (Contd)

The latest news concerning the great-est secret never kept comes rom An-thony Bragalia, who is also promoting hisresearch associated with the re-release

o Carey and Schmitts book on Roswell.

This news appeared on various UFO blogsand web sites as some o the most impor-

tant Roswell news since Frank Kaumannspoke to Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt.

According to Bragalia, the Battelle in-stitute received a piece o the crashed

spaceship, analyzed it, and started study-ing Nickel-Titanium alloys. In order to du-plicate the material, this inormation was

ed to the Navy Ordinance Lab (NOL)that eventually developed a material

called Nitinol, which has shape memorycharacteristics. Early progress reports by

the Battelle institute are missing includ-ing one which has a phase diagram onhow to alloy Nickel and Titanium. This is

red meat or Roswell proponents as it im-plies there is a cover-up.

Bragalias entire series o articles is a

mishmash o speculation and indirectmention o various newly discovereddocuments, which he does not identiy

and, according to him, demonstrates allthis is true. In act, there is little one can

ollow in his article. The only ofcial docu-ment specically identied is the missing

progress report. It is almost as i Bragaliadoes not want everyone to gure out hisresearch. Numerous times, Bragalia takes

great leaps that are ignored by less thancareul readers. He uses words like, sug-

gests, appears, iner, probably, andmay to draw his conclusions. While

his article sounds like it is shocking newevidence, it is really speculation based onwhat he thinks these things mean.

Disconnecting the Battelle-Nitinol link

According to Bragalias article he ounda document that was earth shatteringbut would not reveal what the document

was called or who wrote it. He hinted atit by stating:

This conrmation is given in a brie oot-

note ound in a study by one o Nitinolsocial inventors at the U.S. Naval Lab.

In that military report on Nitinol, the au-

thor ootnotes a 1949 Battelle study whichclearly pertains to the renement o Tita-nium and Nickel. The citation relates to a

phase diagram that examines states omatter and how the two metals could be

successully alloyed...we know that thisprogress report oers the rst phase

diagram ever produced to attempt tosuccessully alloy Titanium and Nickel.1

The article that Bragalia appears to bstating as his source is a 1972 UNCLAS

SIFIED technical report written by Frederick Wang, who studied Nitinol shortly

ater it was created. The document isNavy Ordinance Laboratory Technical Report (NOLTR) 72-4, which is titled On the

NiTi (Nitinol) Martensitic Transition Part 1

It can easily be ound on-line with just alittle searching by anyone using googleBragalia neglects to tell his readers tha

the progress report was only mentionedby Wang because he was discussingthe history o Titanium-Nickel alloy re

search and it is only mentioned brieyamongst a myriad o studies conducted

between 1939 and 1961! Bragalias description about the progress report is

incorrect. He incorrectly states that theprogress report had the FIRST phase dia

gram or Nickel and Titanium. According

MEMORY METAL MADNESS

This is the unclassied document that gives brie

mention to the progress report that Bragalia con

siders to be the smoking gun
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD742767&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdfhttp://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD742767&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdfhttp://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD742767&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdfhttp://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD742767&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf


9/29

to Wangs technical report, there werephase diagrams or Nickel-Titanium prior

to 1949 but they were not complete andhad conicting inormation. Dr. Wang

also states the ollowing about the phasediagram ound in this progress report:

Craighead, Fawn and Eastwood6 (1949)

carried out a limited study o the Ti-Ni

phase diagramup to approximately11.5 at.% nickel within a limited tem-

perature range but did not defne the

eutectic or eutectoid temperatures.

(my emphasis in bold)2

A quick check on the Nickel content inNitinol reveals that it is about 55% Nick-el. Now I am not a metallurgist but this

seems to indicate the phase diagram inthe progress report, which only had

data or up to 11.5% Nickel, did not evencover the region where Nitinol exists. I

accurate, this destroys the claim made byBragalia that this report was ed to theNOL so they could create Nitinol.

In an apparent attempt to make the re-

port appear highly classied, Bragaliaclaims that there are only three other

reerences to this report ever ound andthey are always ootnotes. What does heexpect to nd in technical documents? I

Wang is correct and it is a limited study,it would not be reerenced very oten. I

also think he really means that he couldonly nd three other reerences rom his

on-line searches. A quick google searchound two other documents that oot-noted this report. I am airly condent

that i one examined all the documentsrom the late 1940s and 1950s pertain-

ing to Titanium based alloys, they woulddiscover more reerences to the progress

report. The idea the document is highlyclassied seems unlikely when one dis-covers that Wangs technical report and

the other two documents I ound were all

unclassied.

Bragalia seems to unrealistically assume

that ALL research reports generated inthe 40s and 50s are to be ound on theInternet. I they are not, then the obvi-

ous conclusion he draws is that theywere deliberately hidden or various ne-

arious reasons. He also implies that theBattelle research was prompted solely

by the discovery o the Roswell memorymetal. This conveniently ignores the in-

tense post-war interest o the Air Force

in developing strong, lightweight, heat-resistant alloys or the emerging jet air-

plane and engine technologies, whichTitanium continues to play an important

role to this day.

A search o the Internet or the contractnumber AF33(038)-3736 reveals many

documents and all involve research as-

sociated with Titanium and/or Titaniumbased alloys. There is nothing about

shape memory alloys, no mention o Ro-swell, and there isnt even a specic reer-

ence to the Titanium-Nickel alloy. BruceHutchinson ound two reports by the Bat-

telle institute concerning Titanium andTitanium based alloys listed in the Libraryo Congress on-line catalog. One is dated

April 2, 1948 and the other is dated March15, 1949. They probably cover the same

inormation as the two missing progressreports. Progress report #1, which accord-

ing to Bragalia, is the study o the RoswellUFO metal itsel, is probably just an earlierstudy o Titanium based alloys. Since the

contract appears to be about studying Ti-tanium based alloys, there is no reason to

suspect it was to create a shape memoryalloy (SMA).

Corsoism and rewriting history

Retired Lt. Col. Phillip Corso had madethe claim in his book that he had edvarious companies parts rom the Ro-swell spaceship so they could develop

things like microelectronics and lasers.Most o this is complete rubbish andtakes away rom the hard work and great

accomplishments o engineers and scien-tists. I reer to this as Corsoism, which I

dene as, The process by which Roswellcrashed spaceship proponents claim the

established scientic, academic, or en-gineering achievement o others is notdue to their own abilities but because

o assistance rom alien technology and/

or inormation. Bragalia has embracedCorsoism in order to perpetuate a newRoswell myth and apparently elevate

his position as a top-notch Roswell re-searcher. However, his version o Nitinolshistory is wrong and would probably be

considered ludicrous by most objectiveand inormed observers.

While Bragalia seems to imply that the

knowledge o SMAs appeared only ater1947, there are reerences on-line (wikipe-

dia among others) that state this proper-

ty was being observed in several alloys inthe 1930s. Most important to note is tha

Nitinol was not originally designed to bea SMA. William J. Buehler, documented

the origins o Nitinol at the White OakLaboratory alumni association (WOLAA

website . One can also read about thediscovery o Nitinol in an article written

by George Kaumann and Isaac Mayo o

the journal, The Chemical Educator. Bragalia mentions that the history o Nitino

as murky and conicted and creates alsorts o exotic reasons or this . Perhaps i

is murky or him but it seems that thosewho understand the subject have no

doubts about its origins.

Buehler explains that his initial eor

was to nd a metal alloy that had a highenough temperature resistance so it

could be used in missile nose cones re-entering the earths atmosphere. When

Nitinol was created it exhibited someunique characteristics that required urther study. Dr. Wang was brought in to

help with analyzing the atomic structureo the new alloy. A ew years ater Nitino

was manuactured by Buehlers team, apiece o wire made o Nitinol was brought

to a meeting with an accordion shape. Itwas meant to demonstrate the ability othe metal to avoid atigue ailure. One o

those at the meeting, Dr. David Muzzeyheld it up to his pipe lighter and, to ev-

eryones surprise, the metal straightenedout. This was a true Eureka moment! I

they were actually trying to reproducethe properties o the mythical Roswelmemory metal, one would think they

would know this would happen. Basedon the histories I listed (and not docu

ments I do not name) it appears that thedevelopment o Nitinol is an advance

ment based on good engineering.

Bragalia states that this history o Nitino

is alse. He provides no hard acts or ac

tual documents to demonstrate this istrue. Instead, we leap into Roswell landwhere conjecture is transormed into

acts. According to Bragalia, the ofciahistory about the discovery o Nitinol isalse because:

The ofcial discovery date is no1.

clear.

Dierent reasons oered or its de-2.velopment.
http://www.wolaa.org/files/Nitinol_Oral_History.pdfhttp://www.wolaa.org/files/Nitinol_Oral_History.pdfhttp://www.wolaa.org/files/Nitinol_Oral_History.pdfhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/t0h1618327488j1w/fulltext.pdfhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/t0h1618327488j1w/fulltext.pdfhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/t0h1618327488j1w/fulltext.pdfhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/t0h1618327488j1w/fulltext.pdfhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/t0h1618327488j1w/fulltext.pdfhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/t0h1618327488j1w/fulltext.pdfhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/t0h1618327488j1w/fulltext.pdfhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/t0h1618327488j1w/fulltext.pdfhttp://www.wolaa.org/files/Nitinol_Oral_History.pdfhttp://www.wolaa.org/files/Nitinol_Oral_History.pdfhttp://www.wolaa.org/files/Nitinol_Oral_History.pdf


10/29

Dierent descriptions o its discov-3.ery.

The rst claim, that the ofcial discovery

date is unclear, has a lot to do with Braga-lia misrepresenting or misunderstanding

the process involved. The selection orthe alloy was started in 1958 and was rst

created in 1959. It was not until 1962 that

Dr. Wang came in and began analyzingthe material on an atomic level. All these

events give the impression that the dis-covery has numerous dates. Claims that

there are numerous dates on various websites probably has more to do with which

dates were selected by the authors as theofcial discovery year.

The dierent reasons or its developmentmay have something to do with the metal

being used or re-entry nose cones. Thatnature would probably make the reason

or its development classied. The Timearticle Bragalia reers to rom 1968 givesa dierent reason. This possibly had to

do with keeping the real reason classi-ed at the time. It is also possible that

this use was investigated at some pointand mentioned to the writer, who misin-

terpreted what was stated. I would notconsider this articles statement (whichmight be erroneous or various reasons)

as a reason to dismiss what Buehler stateswas the original reason or the alloys de-

velopment. To try and bolster his claim,Bragalia mentions an unnamed Berkley

source as stating it was developed oruse in submarine hulls. This Berkeleysource appears to be somebody named

Charlie who claims to have worked atLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

They were handed pieces o an alloy andtold to gure it out with the intention

the material was to be used or subma-rine hull design. This is all nonsense andan anonymous source is not considered

to be very reliable. How do we even know

he was working on Nitinol samples? It isan unsubstantiated story being used asa act, which means it proves absolutely

nothing.

The dierent descriptions about the dis-

covery o Nitinols SMA characteristicsare also consistent. Bragalia decides to

make something out o nothing by stat-ing he could nd no record o Dr. David

Muzzey. The implication is that no suchperson existed. Just because the internet

only mentions Dr. Muzzey in this context

does not mean he did not exist. I doubtBragalia bothered to check the Navy Or-

dinance Lab or that time period or at-tempted anything more than a google

search. Bragalia also ound a dierentversion about the discovery o Nitinol. As

is typical in his undocumented articles,Bragalia never tells anyone his sources.

The actual source or this story is Uri

Geller, who claimed this in a discussionwith Bob Couttie in his book, Forbidden

knowledge. An excerpt can be ound onthe web with just a little bit o searching.

Uris claim is not supported by anythingand there is no evidence to suggest he

was even in the Navy labs as a direct wit-ness. The claim can not be consideredreliable.

Spoon bending

Continuing this charade, Bragalia tells

everyone that the government didtests to see i Nitinol could be aectedthrough mind control by using psychics.

For once, Bragalia gives us a source. Hestates this comes rom the document In-

uence on Metal Alloy Nitinol, written byDr. Eldon Byrd. I one does a quick check

with Google, they arrive at this documentbut the title is not what Bragalia states.Once again, Bragalia ails to tell the read-

er that this was NOT an ofcial study bythe US Navy and only a paper written by

Byrd about....Uri Geller! The actual titleo the document is Uri Gellers inuence

on the metal alloy Nitinol. Geller is theonly psychic exposed to testing Nitinol,which busts the claim o Bragalia that

more than one psychic was involved. The act that Bragalia never mentions

Gellers name may have something to dowith Geller being a suspected raud. The

mention o Gellers name might suggestthe research was awed and Bragaliaprobably did not want that to happen.

Martin Gardner exposed much o whatByrd wrote as erroneous in his May/June1977 Humanist article Geller, Gulls, and

Nitinol (this can also be ound on the in-ternet). According to the paper that Bra-galia cites as his source, the Geller test had

occurred at The Isis Center o the NavalSurace Weapons Center. Gardners work

demonstrated it actually was perormedoutside the Naval Surace Warare Center

in a new age haven called, The Isis Centeror Research and Study o the Esoteric Arts

and Sciences! Byrd has also claimed that

various analyses and studies were doneby the Navy labs, which the Navy denies

Dr. Wang does not remember perorming any o Byrds tests, so Byrd makes the

claim that Dr. Wang was told to deny histests were perormed. Byrd could easily

have produced the documents to reutethis but it appears he never did. Braga

lia swallows Byrds story hook, line, and

sinker and asked Dr. Wang what he knewo Byrds claim. According to Bragalia

Wang stated, Byrd says a lot o things.

Bragalia ignored the implication o

Wangs diplomatic response, which wasthat Byrd said a lot o things that were

probably not true or exaggerationsLooking at Byrds record concerning theUri Geller incident, among other things,

can understand Dr. Wangs response.

Wright is wrong

Other items mentioned by Bragaliathat he uses to conrm his suspi-cions are speculative jumps trying to link

various individuals to the discovery andthe Air Forces interest in Nitinol. Gen

eral Exon, who told Kevin Randle/DonSchmitt all sorts o stories about Roswell

is quoted about the Roswell crat beingconstructed o an alloy o Titanium andanother metal. Exon would later state

that he only heard rumors and had norst hand knowledge about Roswell

Bragalia ails to mention this and seizeson this statement and tries to link it to

Nitinol. Considering that Titanium alloys were being used by the aerospaceindustry in the 1950s and 60s (including

the SR-71), this is no great surprise andproves nothing.

Bragalia then states the memo written

in 1947 by General Schulgen, describesprecisely some o the characteristics oNitinol! In his greatest leap o logic (o

maybe it is aith), Bragalia writes the ol

lowing about the Shulgen memo:

In the veried version o this memo is

ound a section entitled Items o Construction. Schulgen instructs his ocersto be aware o fying objects and thei

materials o construction. He specicallynotes the unusual abrication methods

to achieve extreme lightweight and thathe material is o a composite construc

tion...using various combinations o metals.


11/29

Schulgen is describing precisely (myemphasis) some o the very characteris-

tics o Nitinol. Just like the Roswell debrismaterial, it is an extreme lightweight

intermetallic alloy. As a novel compositeconstruction, it is created by an unusual

abrication method that uses a combi-nation o metals- perhaps like Titanium

and Nickel.4

Completely ignored by Bragalia is this

statement in the Schulgen memo thatprecedes the requirements section o

the memo:

For the purpose o analysis and evaluationo the so-called fying saucer phenome-non, the object sighted is being assumed

to be a manned aircrat, o Russian origin,and based on the perspective thinking and

actual accomplishments o the Germans.5

So, these methods o construction haveto do with how the Soviets would con-struct a jet powered aircrat that might

be producing the ying saucer reports.Additionally, Bragalia only delivers parts

o a memo he wants everyone to read. The pertinent ull sentences concerning

the materials or constructing these hy-pothetical Soviet crat reads:

Composite or sandwich construction uti-lizing various combinations o metals,

plastics, and perhaps balsa wood...Unusu-al abrication methods to achieve extreme

light weight and structural stability par-ticularly in connection with great capacityor uel storage.6

Completely missing rom Bragalias mis-

sive are the words plastics and, o allthings, balsa wood. He also deleted the

sandwich construction item. As or theunusual abrication statement, he ailedto mention it was ocusing on uel storage

capacity. Bragalia is cherry picking and is

grossly misrepresenting what is ound inthe Schulgen memo. Most important inall o this is that not one o these items

is PRECISELY speciying the charac-teristics o Nitinol. I am not even sure iBragalia knows what the characteris-

tics o Nitinol really are. The Schulgenmemo makes no mention o SMAs and

I could probably suggest numerous al-loys besides Nitinol that have the same

characteristics as those mentioned in thememo.

Preaching to the choir

Most o what Bragalia wrote is basedon guesswork without understand-ing the process used to develop Nitinol.Buehlers discovery was a great achieve-

ment or him and Bragalia is basicallycalling him a raud. Additionally, Braga-

lia s interview with Dr. Wang appears to

have been a shing expedition used toget Dr. Wang to say something that could

be used. Once Bragalia revealed his trueintentions, Dr. Wang probably under-

stood what was happening and did notwant to discuss Roswell. Bragalia has

learned rom the best Roswell research-ers that when you ask vague questions,you can interpret the answers any way

you desire.

As or the missing progress reports thatBragalia claims he is trying to locate, it

is my opinion that they show nothingrelated to Roswell. I this is the case, Ipredict that Bragalia will state that the

reports have been altered or he will ndsomething vague in the report that he

will attempt to link to Roswell.

While the head-nodding Roswell wor-shipers are going to praise Bragalia,those that examine the claims objective-

ly will probably come to the conclusionthat it is another example o very sloppy

research. Bragalia is being intellectuallydishonest by purposeully misrepresent-

ing what many o these actual documentsstate and not identiying them so otherscan see what he is describing. This is a

replay o the missing Roswell nurse saga.Exotic claims are made but, when closely

examined, they turn out to be poorly re-searched and alse. O course, Bragalia is

working closely with Don Schmitt andTom Carey, who are proessionals at thiskind o research. What do they say about

birds o a eather?

Notes and Reerences

1. Bragalia, Anthony. Roswell debris con-rmed as extraterrestrial: Lab located,Scientists named. UFO Iconclast Blog

available WWW: http://uocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-conrmed-

as.html

2. Wang, Frederick. On the NiTi (Nitinol)Martensitic Transition Part 1. US Navy

Ordinance Laboratory. January 1, 1972.

3. Bragalia, Anthony. The nal secrets o

Roswells memory metal revealed. UFOIconclast Blog available WWW: http://uo

con.blogspot.com/2009/06/nal-secrets-o-roswells-memory-metal.html

4. Bragalia, Anthony. Roswell debris con-

rmed as extraterrestrial: Lab located

Scientists named. UFO Iconclast Blogavailable WWW: http://uocon.blogspot

com/2009/05/roswell-debris-conrmedas.html

5. Schulgen, George F. Intelligence re

quirements on ying saucer type aircrat30 October, 1947. Project 1947 websiteavailable WWW: http://www.project1947

com/g/schulgen.htm

6. Ibid.

Special thanks to Bruce Hutchinson or hiseorts In identiying some o the documentsdescribed and BAUT member SAM5 o

pointing me towards the document writtenby Dr. Wang.

The SUNRISE connection

One site I stumbled upon during my internet searches was the Sunrise website

which is apparently run by an anonymousAustralian Researcher who had contacted

Carey and Schmitt in 2008 about the Nitinol-Battelle connection. The website is

a lengthy pd document that rambles onor hundreds o pages with the same typeo speculation perormed by Bragalia (ex

cept they do list sources). The authoadds they choose to remain anonymous

because they ear retribution rom the USgovernment and various right wing in

dividuals. I think this is melodramatic iyou ask me. Has anyone ever been actually harmed or researching Roswell?

About six months ater contacting theSchmitt/Carey team, an American researcher, who appears to be Bragalia

contacted the Australian researcherBragalia never mentioned the Sunrisewebsite as any source o inormation in

his articles about Nitinol and gave theimpression he did most o the work. Sun

rise may not mind Bragalias ailure tomention where he started his adventure

but it just doesnt look right to me. Yoube the judge.....
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/vultures.htmhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-confirmed-as.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-confirmed-as.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-confirmed-as.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/06/final-secrets-of-roswells-memory-metal.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/06/final-secrets-of-roswells-memory-metal.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/06/final-secrets-of-roswells-memory-metal.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-confirmed-as.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-confirmed-as.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-confirmed-as.htmlhttp://www.project1947.com/fig/schulgen.htmhttp://www.project1947.com/fig/schulgen.htmhttp://www.sunrisepage.com/roswell.htmhttp://www.sunrisepage.com/roswell.htmhttp://www.project1947.com/fig/schulgen.htmhttp://www.project1947.com/fig/schulgen.htmhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-confirmed-as.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-confirmed-as.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-confirmed-as.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/06/final-secrets-of-roswells-memory-metal.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/06/final-secrets-of-roswells-memory-metal.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/06/final-secrets-of-roswells-memory-metal.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-confirmed-as.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-confirmed-as.htmlhttp://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-debris-confirmed-as.htmlhttp://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/vultures.htm


12/29

The Battle o Hastings

Ialways thought the battle o Hastingswas ought in 1066. I guess I was wrongbecause Robert Hastings continues toengage skeptics in battle with tactics

consisting o hurling insults and makingidle threats. His latest tirade appeared

on the UFO chronicles blog, where he

claims that skeptics are in deep denial.As I wrote last issue, he bases this all on

the letters o Mansmann and Jacobs writ-ten decades ater the event. Hastings re-

buttal was really not a rebuttal. It did notaddress points raised by George and was

essentially a rehash o his IUR article anda chance to, once again, publish excerptsrom his book. However, Hastings elt I

was a target as well as George and raisedsome issues I elt needed to be addressed

in order to set the record straight.

During his BAUT discussion (look at theUFOs and Nukes thread), Hastings stat-ed he would send me copies o the letters

or ree so I could read them (post 179).He added that anybody else would have

to pay $3 or postage. I was amazed howarchaic that was and promptly told every-

one to save their money because, whenI received the letters, I would scan themand pass them out to anybody who de-

sired a set. Hastings then asked me to postthem on my/the BAUT website (post 205).

I responded that I would not because omy concerns about my space limitations

and I had no control over the BAUT web-site (post 216). I then stated I would sendhim the scans via email (which I did) and

he could post them on his website. Forsome reason Hastings did not pay atten-

tion to what I stated or got conused. Helater told everyone in the orum that they

should be able to view them on my/theBAUT website (post 278). I corrected himon this issue but I am not sure i he even

read it or understood me (post 283). I

wonder why he did not post them onhis website like I suggested in post 216?You did not see me whining on my web-

site about him being unable to gure outhow to scan the letters himsel. I think it isironic that the reason he has the scans is

because I did it or him! Let Hastings cryabout why I dont have the letters on my

website but he is being deceptive by in-dicating I was trying to hide them rom

view.

Hastings also incorrectly stated that I

was going to accept anything Georgesays. I stated on my website and in the

BAUT orum that I would remove theGeorge posting i Hastings could prove

he was lying about the events o Buzz-ing Bee. I also stated i better evidence

suraced about the Big Sur case showing

that George was wrong, I would gladlyaccept it. Again, Hastings is not telling

the whole story. I can only assume it isbecause he wants his audience to think

I am an evil skeptic and that they wontcheck my website or the BAUT thread.

For those who decide to examine whatI have stated here, they will discover thatHastings has demonstrated that his com-

mentary is actually awed.

Since Hastings really has not done anytechnical research on the equipment

used with the BU telescope, he usesMansmann or a positive verication thatthe UFO was an alien spaceship. We are

not talking about any reports written inthe1960s by Mansmann or Jacobs but

letters written based on memories de-cades old. It is interesting to note that

in the very letters Hastings holds so dear,Mansmann stated he was not sure i thedisc had a dome or not (5/6/87 letter

to Scott Crain) and in another letter hestated his memory was sketchy but the

center seemed to be a raised bubble(3/8/83 letter to Peter Bons). The prob-

lem is that it would be difcult to identiya domed-disc UFO using a magniyingglass because o the eects the IO ex-

hibited with bright objects coupled withthe resolution capabilities o the lm.

He could have used a microscope andit still would not improve the resolution

capabilities o the setup. Eventually, allyou are doing is enlarging noise. Kings-ton George gave all the details about the

resolution capabilities o the equipment

in his 2009 article. Hastings completelyignores this technical discussion and o-ers only the letters to rebut George.

Several o the questions I asked o Hast-ings was what documentation he had to

support the claims o an alien spaceship.I even asked i he examined General Jew-

ell Maxwells (the commanding generalo the western test center) records (see

post 148). Perhaps an appointment bookexists that could pinpoint when the lm

was screened. Since then, I wonder i

General Selmon Wells was the generamentioned because he was commande

o the 1st aerospace division at Vandenberg. As best I can tell rom Hastings re

sponse, he did not look into either Generals records. For that matter, I dont thin

he even examined any records.

I would also think that there would b

quite a bit o chatter in the high command about the loss o a dummy war

head. There were no attempts at improving warhead deense and no eorts mad

to improve security or uture launchesThere wasnt even any discussion abou

the crat being possibly a new sovieweapon that could make the US nucleaarsenal obsolete! Hastings could not pro

vide one single document that indicatedthe warhead was destroyed/lost in igh

and that the high command was the leasbit concerned about this.

Finally, Hastings did not even bother toevaluate any other possibility in his re

search. When I mentioned various proects that could have been involved, h

seemed oblivious to them. Even wheI asked about the purpose o the igh

he believes is the one Jacobs is talkingabout, he seemed clueless and did noeven know the launch was called Butte

y net. Mr. Hastings endless name-caling and threats o legal action are just

acade used to conceal his lack o knowedge and poor research.

Hastings has taken this stand becaushe has appeared in numerous venue

deending this case. Hastings eorts ttransorm Jacobs/Mansmann into UFO

saints is nothing but a desperate attempt to prop up the case. As I stated o

my web page, we dont know i these twmen believed in UFOs because o theviewing o the lm or because o opin

ions they ormed in later years. We do

know that there is no direct evidence tosupport the contention that a UFO shodown a dummy warhead. Until Hasting

can demonstrate with actual evidencrom 1964, that the event happened aJacobs/Mansmann described, the mos

likely explanation will remain a misinterpretation o what was on the lm. Base

on his current scorched earth policy odenigration and blus, I dont see Hast

ings coming up with any new evidence ithe near uture.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/78952-ufos-nukes.htmlhttp://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/78952-ufos-nukes.html


13/29

Why dont astronomers see physical crat in the sky operating

under intelligent control that dey explanation?

Ever since his book came out, Dr. PhilPlait has been criticized by UFO propo-nents or his statements regarding UFOs.Phil has wondered aloud why more UFO

reports do not come rom the amateur

astronomy community. The howls andcatcalls rom the UFO proponents is to

list various obscure observations by as-tronomers over the years. However, they

appear to be conused at what Dr. Plait istrying to state. He is not stating that ama-

teur astronomers do not make any UFOreports but why dont they report moreevents than the ew isolated incidents

that populate the UFO literature? UFOsby their own denition are unidentied

and could be just about anything. It is notimprobable or amateur astronomers to

see something they might not be able toidentiy during their observations. WhileUFO proponents like to state that astron-

omers are seeing UFOs, the real questionis Do astronomers see physical objects

that are actual crat operating under in-telligent control that dey explanation?

How do astronomers practice their pro-

ession?

P

roessional astronomers are mostly

about data gathering through largetelescopes. They dont normally stare at

an eyepiece or stand underneath the starsgazing away. It is just not easible whenyou have valuable time with a multi-

million dollar telescope to conduct yourresearch. Most o the data is gathered

using electronic methods which can becalibrated to give precise values that can

be analyzed. Unlike their counterparts acentury earlier, proessionals today nor-mally do not observe the sky visually but

that does not mean they do not under-

stand the sky. Those that I have met havea distinct love o the night sky and enjoylooking through amateur telescopes. I

would not be surprised that many havetheir own portable telescope at home

just to gaze at the sky on evenings they

are not working.

Still, the proessionals have equipmentthat can detect these supposed large

crat invading our air space. The tele-scopes being used to scan or near-earth

asteroids are incredible in that they cover

signicant areas o the sky every night. The Pan-STARRS instrument has a three

degree eld o view and takes exposureso 30-60 seconds in duration. More o

these telescopes are being constructed.

Meanwhile the older NEAT, LINEAR, andLONEOS wide-eld telescopes continue to

search wide areas o the sky or asteroidsand comets. These telescopes are so good

that they discovered the Rosetta spaceprobe approaching earth or a gravity as-

sist maneuver. Nobody realized it was thespace probe and it was assigned a minorplanet number or a ew days until the

mistake was realized! How are these largecrat (much larger than Rosetta which is

about 100 eet across) approaching theearth evading detection by astronomical

telescopes?

I a ew degrees eld o view is considered

too small, what about the Night Sky Liveproject? Here, all sky cameras are in op-

eration studying the night sky. In act, onedid detect a UFO on December 17, 2004. It

was published a ew months later on theastronomy picture o the day (APOD) web-site. There was no eort to hide this rom

anyone and there was a call or people totry and gure out the source o the UFO. It

was eventually determined to be a boost-er rocket uel dump. Contrary to what

UFO proponents want everyone to think,the sky is being monitored airly closelyby proessional instruments on a regular

basis. One would think that a large space-crat ying over any o these telescope sys-

tems would be recorded in some way.

How do astronomers practice their hob-

by?

The amateur astronomy community is

a large collection o knowledgeablepeople with varying interests. To describeeach would take some time. Some partici-

pate in group sky watches or the publicand others do their observing in remotedark sky locations. Some have cameras set

up to monitor the night sky every night rometeors and others decide to monitor the

sky or meteors visually. The varied inter-ests have them using instruments ranging

rom the naked eye to mammoth tele-scopes with huge mirrors. All enjoy the

night sky and they rarely miss anything

that occurs in the sky when they are to-gether.

No large unidentied crat seem to appear during

public viewing sessions.

What is the typical UFO?

There really is no such thing as a typi-cal UFO but there are statistics to sug-gest a general description. The averageduration or most UFO reports is about

three to ten minutes based on data inAllan Hendrys UFO handbook. Consid-

ering that they are noticed by peoplerandomly looking up, indicates they areprobably bright objects so they catch

their attention. I have no data to backthis up but one would expect the lights

on these aerial vehicles to be equal toa rst magnitude star or brighter. Finally,

the angular size must be big enough orpeople to identiy eatures. This meansthe minimal size is probably about the

size o the ull moon or a hal degree in

size. Some reports, i the estimated val-ues given are accurate, indicate sizes thatwould block out most o the sky but these

estimates are probably erroneous and/orexaggerations. I think the upper limit onmost observations o these massive crat

would be about teen to twenty degreesacross.

These aerial vehicles are being seen on

a regular basis by witnesses. I usuallycan nd roughly a dozen reports each

month in the National UFO Reporting


14/29

Center (NUFORC) database. However,the NUFORC database is incomplete and

there are oten other centers that collectreports dierent than those reported

to NUFORC. Then there are those caseswhere reports are not led. I these re-

ports are accurate, one can suggest thatat least one massive aerial vehicle can

be seen on a daily basis somewhere in

the world.

UFOlogys myths about astronomers

Because o their limited knowledgeabout astronomy, amateur astrono-mers, and desire to perpetuate the UFOphenomena, UFOlogists have generatedsome myths about all amateur astrono-

mers:

Astronomers are too busy lookingthrough small elds o their tele-

scope and miss many things thathappen in the night sky.

Astronomers would not report UFOsor ear o ridicule rom their ellow

astronomers.

Present day amateur astronomersuse computer guided telescopesand observe rom the comort o

their armchairs like their proession-al counterparts. They do not spend

much time outside anymore.

These characterizations o astronomersare oten repeated as an excuse or whyso ew astronomers report UFOs. How

do these myths stand up under scrutiny?

Busting the small feld o view myth

This is one I see the most. It misrepre-sents how astronomers conduct theirhobby. The time spent examining an

object in the eyepiece equates to about

hal the observing time or the amateurastronomer. This applies equally to thoseamateurs who manually guide their tele-

scopes taking astrophotographs. How-ever, this is only the tip o the iceberg.

Lets look at that typical unknown aerialvehicle I described. When I am observ-

ing, I get easily distracted by lights romairplanes, satellites, and even the red

lights used by astronomers nearby. Thisis when I am concentrating on a guide

star in my eyepiece. As a result, I am sup-

posed to ignore an object that is at leastthe size o the ull moon and as bright

as some o the brightest stars in the sky.What is more amazing is that I am sup-

posed to ignore it or several minutes.

UFO proponents ignore the act thatmost amateur astronomers observe

in groups. This means that while one

person is observing, another is doingsomething else. The more people that

are present, the less likely that anyoneis going to miss something o transitory

nature in the sky.

Two astronomers gazing at the sky. Notice that

only one is looking into an eyepiece!

A good example o how very little goesunnoticed is what happened to me lastsummer. While I was perorming astro-

photography with a ellow amateur, Ihappened to notice a 2nd to 3rd magni-

tude star in Aquila that should not havebeen there. My rst though was that it

was a potential nova. As I observed it, itslowly aded and then brightened again.I then noticed that while the stars were

moving due to the earths rotation, this

star was not moving. It was a geosyn-chronous satellite.

Geosynchronous satellite seen in 2008

Others notice strange lights in the skyand report them. The inamous Aries

Perseus Flasher was seen by an amateuastronomer in the mid-1980s. It was de

scribed in the February 1985 issue o Skyand Telescope as a 1st to 3rd magnitude

star-like object visible or a brie period inthe constellations o Aries. Dozens, i not

hundreds, o astronomers began to look

or the asher, hoping to get a glimpseo the phenomena. One photograph was

eventually obtained (published in theJuly 1985 issue). It later turned out that

the source o most o these reports andthe photograph had to do with glints/

reections o o satellites.

Busting the ridicule myth

Experienced amateur astronomerstend to learn rom their mistakesThey know that it is easy to misidentiy

an object as something it is not. TheInternational Astronomical Union (IAUwebsite has a warning about potentia

discoverers o comets, novae, and asteroids. They state that or every real dis

covery, there are ve that are not. Thethrill o discovery can blind astronomers

rom being critical o their observationsStill, many continue to report strange ob

jects they see that might be a discovery

They are not worried about being ridiculed because they know that discovery

o an unknown is important. The AriesPerseus asher is a perect example o

this kind o observation.

Over the years, I have heard all sorts o

stories told to me by other astronomerso various lights they saw that were

strange. I cant explain all o them because some are many years old and I was

not there. They are UFOs in the sense thatthey can not be identied. None o theseamateurs, who know in advance that

am skeptical about UFO reports, eared

me ridiculing them or telling me theiUFO stories. However, I have never heardany amateur astronomer telling me they

saw an immensely large aerial vehicleshovering over their observing site.

Busting the warming room myth

Arecent addition to the UFOlogymyths about amateur astronomersis the warming room myth. With thewide-spread use o computerized tele

scopes and advanced CCD imaging


15/29

some amateurs have stepped into ob-serving rom their desktops at home or

in a warming room near the telescope.They do not even go outside. I have met

and seen several do this. However, theseare a minority o amateur astronomers.

Every month, during the new moon peri-

od hundreds o amateur astronomers get

out to their dark sky locations in groupsto observe the sky. Many clubs have their

own observing sites, which may includean observatory. It is a rare to see these

sites empty on clear moonless nights.At my own clubs observatory, there are

usually three or our present even onweekday nights. Then there are the ma-

jor star parties that occur or several days

each month in various parts o the coun-try. These events have been very popular

or decades and usually have groups oa hundred or more. The more astrono-

mers that are present under a dark sky,the less likely it is or something is go-ing to be missed. What are the odds that

these massive structured crat appeareverywhere but not over any major star

party or astronomy club group observ-ing session? I you doubt me, you should

check out this video by William Castle-man o the Texas star party. All the redlights are astronomers out enjoying the

sky. I the crat were only reported oc-casionally, it would be unlikely. However,

we are talking about reports numberingin the hundreds each year and that is

only or the large aerial vehicles.

Setting up or the nights observing session. Why

are they outside? Everyone knows amateurs stayin the warming hut all night long!

O course, the UFO proponent will nowquestion, What about during the ullmoon period, when amateurs are not at

their dark sky locations? I cant speakor other amateurs but the ull moon pe-

riod is my time to observe any planets orexperimenting with my equipment out

in the yard. I usually practice some so Idont waste time on my trips to the dark

sky site. I also can image planets rom my

observatory shed in my yard because the.city lights do not matter when it comes

to the moon and planets. I am sure manyamateurs do the same. O course, the

days around the rst quarter and beyondare excellent periods or public observ-

ing sessions. Everybody loves to look atthe moon! Just because the moon is near

ull, does not mean astronomers arent

out observing the sky.

Astronomers want to see an exotic

aerial vehicle o unknown origin!

People tend to think that astronomersdo not want to see any o these mas-sive aerial vehicles so oten reportedand will not mention it i they do. Noth-

ing could be urther rom the truth. Ipersonally would love to see such an ob-

ject. I also know that i an experiencedamateur astronomer did report such an

object, he would provide actual datathat could be analyzed and not seat othe pants estimates. To date, I am un-

aware o any such detailed report beingsubmitted about one o these massive

aerial crat. I am aware that an amateurastronomer saw the amous Arizona

UFO triangle o 1997 with his telescope.He did not report seeing an alien space-ship. Instead, he reported seeing aircrat

with lights in a V ormation. Because hestated he saw something mundane, his

report is ignored, ridiculed, or dismissedby UFOlogists. UFOlogists do not seem

to be interested in answers. They onlyappear to want mysteries that they canpresent as evidence or unidentiable

aerial vehicles operating under intelli-gent control (AKA alien spaceships).

Astronomers and UFO reports

Some UFO proponents ail to under-stand that UFO means unidentied.Yes, astronomers may report UFOs sim-

ply because they are unable to identiythe object at the time. There are so manydierent events that happen in the sky,

it is very hard or an astronomer to be a-miliar with all o them.

An excellent example o this is an as-tronomer UFO report I have oten seen

presented as being a good astronomer/UFO case. That event being the Canary Is-

lands UFOs o June 22nd, 1976. Astron-omers were reported to have seen the

UFO. However, research by The Anamoly

Foundation determined that the causeo the report was a US ICBM test launch

The astronomers had no idea what theywere looking at because they had neve

seen such an event beore.. Thereore, itwas an unidentied.

Photographs I took o an unannounced ICBM

launch by a submarine o the coast o Florida. We

were out observing and were surprised by its ap-

pearance in the east (south o the Cape). I still had

time to get my camera out and get these shots.

The bottom photo shows the luminescent cloud

let behind.

The dierence between unidentied

and exotic aerial vehicle operating under intelligent control is great. One is aquestion mark and could be just about

anything. The other is something that ispositively identied and indicates that

something truly extraordinary is ying inthe sky. When UFO proponents can pro

duce report by astronomers that positively identiy the event as a unknownaerial vehicle o the kind described in so

many UFO reports these days, they might

have something to crow about.

Where are all the unidentiable aerial vehicles?
http://vimeo.com/4505537http://vimeo.com/4505537


16/29

UFO chases space station!

Iwas reading the UFO examiner one dayand a report caught my eye. It was ac-tually three reports that were logged orMay 29, 2009. The rst was made rom

Mt. Pleasant, Texas and described a UFOovertaking the ISS as it passed across the

sky. The object was described as ainter

than the ISS and moving in the same gen-eral direction. There were no navigation

lights/anti-collision strobe light and it wasmoving at a speed o 2.5-3X greater than

the ISS. The witness also stated the ob-ject dimmed and brightened as it passed

by. This by itsel did not mean much un-til the UFO examiner posted anotherreport given rom Mounds, OK (roughly

200 miles to the north o Mt. Pleasant). This was observed by several people at

the Tulsa astronomy clubs observatory.Unortunately, the observer making the

report must not have been a very expe-rienced astronomer since his/her descrip-tion was somewhat vague with no times,

angular speeds, or magnitude estimates. Their observation indicated the object

was smaller than the ISS indicating theyprobably meant it was ainter. They also

mentioned that it pulsed. The witnessclaimed to have never seen any satellitelike this beore and they were experi-

enced at watching satellites. Despite thelimitations o the observations made by

the astronomer in Oklahoma, one cancouple it with the better Mt. Pleasant ob-

servations to get a general idea o the objects characteristics. The UFO examinerthrew in a third observation in Texas but

this observer only mentioned one lightthat sounded a lot like the ISS.

My rst thought was the object must be

an unknown in low earth orbit (LEO). Asa result, I immediately went to the Sat-ellite Observers archives or 2009. Sure

enough, there was an observation that

caught my eye by Derek Breit on 28 Mayone day prior to this event. He statedthat he saw a screaming LEO that night

at 9:37 local time. He also described itas ashing on and o as it tumbled withpeak brightness about magnitude +1. He

identied it as USSpacecom catalog num-ber 35011. A quick examination o Heav-

ens above or Mounds, OK revealed theollowing inormation about the ISS and

35011 or the night o May 29, 2009:

Time Direction

ISS 21:10-21:16 NW - SE

35011 21:14-21:18 NW - SE

This is pretty close. The orbit or 35011,which is an SL-4 rocket body rom a 27

May 2009 launch (and came to earth on

Documents

SUNlite vol.1 n.2