Author |
Topic: Chris Ellis comments and ideas (Read 256 times) |
|
admin
Administrator
member is offline
contact 1-417-739-4742
 
Gender: 
Posts: 535
|
 |
Chris Ellis comments and ideas
« Thread started on: May 25th, 2009, 11:50am » |
|
Hello everyone, this is Chris Ellis - the other scientist mentioned in the May 6th show. 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.
|
|
 Logged
|
You can only go
as far as you push
|
|
|
admin
Administrator
member is offline
contact 1-417-739-4742
Gender:
Posts: 535
|
|
Re: Chris Ellis comments and ideas
« Reply #1 on: May 25th, 2009, 11:54am » |
|
My very first impression of the object was that it looked organic. I thought it was a petrified pine cone of ancient origin. Once I got closer I realized it was an aluminum alloy and not rock or stone. After spending some time studying it visually, I thought it might be an intricate casting of something organic. It wasn’t until after I studied all the macroscopic, microscopic and Scanning Electron Microscopic (SEM) photos that I decided the object was not modeled after an organic item and that it was not cast. There are no signs of casting or hand carving on the object. It has a 3-D structure that would be near impossible to cast.
My study then turned to what other scientists were saying. In Bob’s book and in the documents he contains, several other scientists have analyzed the object and the data and they concluded that the object was not cast or etched. I knew I was on the right path of thought. Next, I conducted several thought experiments to determine what the object (in its current shape) could be used for. I found none. In its current form it could only be used as an ornament. It was then that I deduced that it must have changed from its original form. But how? To understand this you must understand the properties of metals at their melting temperatures. It’s also important to note that you must understand the principle of crystal lattice structure. First, the object contains no obvious microstructure. It has no wires, no obvious detail that would tell me that it was a man-made object used in known electronics.
Next, it’s not like any metals used in substrates in the semiconductor industry. The substrates I studied for my degree where very thin (<1mm) in depth and were deposited via a very complex process. They have a very well documented crystal lattice structure. Bob’s object was very large and in my opinion could not be used as an LED or Laser Diode for example. Therefore, I knew that it wasn’t a classical piece of micro-electronics nor was it a uniform object of known crystal lattice structure. Experiments have found that different samples of the object have yielded different concentrations, therefore the object is 100% uniform throughout it’ s body. Studying it’s feathery scales it has been determined that the surface has not been scorched (or oxidized) like you would see if it was heated in an oxygen-rich environment or exposed to temperatures that would make it burn. The surface is quite smooth. This differs from you’d see if you looking at something taken from a cutoff saw. Bob’s object is extremely smooth and this is seen in the microscopic photos as well. Additionally, there are flow lines in the feathers that indicate metal flow or creep as a result of being near its melting point. It then became clear to me that the object was heated to near its melting temperature (which would be around 600-700C) and subjected to gravity or intense air flow. This would cause the near-liquid metal on the surface to creep towards one end. If the object fell from low-earth orbit (according to NASA’s website calculator) it would definitely achieve the necessary velocity to obtain enough friction, which would result in the necessary heat and air flow to form the surface. However, it would reach astonishing speeds and would hit the ground before it could form such a long feathery surface. Also, the data suggests that the feathery objects were formed in an oxygen poor environment. Other scientists have concluded this as well. This throws out one of my main theories that the object could be space debris (from low-earth orbit, which is >100 miles in altitude). The other theory is that it encountered the heat and flow by passing in front of something that creates great heat and flow (jet engine). I considered this however the object would have to be held VERY firmly in place while it was morphed. The object’s original base shows no sign of being welded in place and it shows no sign of being cut from a weld. The object’s original base looks like the surface of a little meteorite. It has little divets and is rough in appearance, yet smooth. It does not look machined or tooled. At most it looks cast. However, the end is surrounded on it’s end by the beginnings of the feathers. So it takes me back to the free-fall theory again.
This is where, as a scientist, I have to evaluate Bob’s testimony very carefully. You cannot discount his testimony because it’s such an important part of this investigation. He found the object and he saw where it came from. As an investigator you have to see how the shape of the object matches his testimony.
First, Bob says it was shot out of the UFO at an unknown height. He said there was a small explosion and that the little object shot like a meteor towards the Earth. He followed it and found it at the end of a large groove in the ground. He said this was off an embankment next to the highway. Western Colorado has very dry soil. It’s sandy and rocky. If a meteor hits the ground there, you’re not going to see the same impact that you’d see in farming soil. The groove matches what I would consider to be a high-speed impact from a cylindrical object. It was moving at high speed because it left a groove versus just bouncing off the ground. It was also travelling like a bullet and not tumbing end over end. If it was tumbling it would have bounced and not left a groove. Because we don’t know how long, deep and big the groove was we have to assume that it was at least significant enough for Bob to remember it. The object was found in the groove and not outside the groove. To make a groove like that in that type of soil, you’d need a lot of energy. This is something that needs to be recreated under a controlled environment.
Next, Bob says it was still glowing hot when he found it. Assuming it was a moonless night, you might see this. Aluminum is a poor metal and unlike iron it quickly hardens and it does not readily glow when hot. You can see many videos out there that show aluminum slag being poured. It solidifies rapidly. Aluminum in open air will not continue to glow like iron so Bob could have only seen the object glowing if he came upon it while it was still very hot and freshly landed. Also, it would have to be very dark outside to see the minuscule glow. This statement is negated if the object was getting heat from elsewhere (internally).
The object has been cut at both ends, and the photos posted on flickr show this. You can see the fat end has the bumpy texture that I mentioned. Also, in the photos, you’ll see two different colors. One, is the blue from the LED light that was used to illuminate the object. The second is brown, which is from the incandescent lights in the room. They give a brown reflection because of the grime and oxidation (from the 1% iron content). While the LED photos are nice, the brown photos show that the object is not coated in silver. Instead it shows that the object’s feather coat is actually made up of the constituent metals, including iron, which easily oxidizes. Cooper oxidizes as well and it a likely contributor to the color.
The object has two lobes forming somewhat of a U shape. The tail is extremely tapered and has an aerodynamic appeal to it. I want to perform some aerodynamic tests, which will help prove that the object was formed under intense “air flow”.
WeGrok69,
The object formed two distinct circular patterns when placed on the x-ray film. Uranium decays into Thorium, which then decays into Radon. During the decay process, alpha particles are emitted. Alpha particles are easly blocked by newspaper. So, a metal body would easily block or contain alpha particles. Escaping alpha particles would be highly scattered. So, unless the Uranium is at the surface, how did such a distinct pattern form? I don’t know. Also, why where the other films unexposed?
As a scientist I am very familiar with radiation and radioactive materials. I studied them during college. The three main types of radiation in the decay process are: alpha, beta and gamma. There are other forms of decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay), including neutrons. So, where did the patterns, which were only seen at the end, come from? Nobody knows. X-ray film will expose x-rays and other high-energy rays and particles, but they will not expose in the visible light or below. I can say that the x-ray film experiments must be repeated to confirm what is being seen.
Next, the original research team took the sample to California and the object was exposed to a Neutron Bubble Chamber test tube. The object was seen emitting neutrons, which is actually pretty extraordinary. It did this under appropriate shielding from cosmic radiation. This is a fantastic result that I am looking forward to recreating. What emits fast neutrons? Well, they typically come from cosmic radiation or particle accelerators. They are also products of fusion and fission. Bob’s object is not an obvious source of any of these physical processes. This area must be studied further and the tests must be repeated.
|
|
Logged
|
You can only go
as far as you push
|
|
|
|
