Physical analysis of 10 UAP cases with material samples

[justcurious]

For anybody interested in the physical aspect of UAP investigation, if you were not aware of this paper you will like it.

Physical Analyses in Ten Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Material Samples

JACQUES F. VALLEE in Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 359±375, 1998

Abstract : A survey of ten cases of unexplained aerial phenomena accompanied by material residues shows a broad distribution of natural elements, many of which are metallic in nature. They can be roughly described as belonging in two categories: light materials of high conductivity such as aluminium, and slag-like materials reminiscent of industrial by-products.
​

Most of the cases under consideration strive to meet four criteria:

1) the literature gives sufficient ground to support the fact that an unusual aerial phenomenon occurred
2) the circumstances of the actual recovery of the specimen are reported
3) there is data to suggest that the specimen is in fact linked to the observed aerial object
4) physical analysis has been performed by a competent laboratory of known reliability

In several instances the sample is available for continuing study by independent scientists. In the absence of a firm chain of evidence and of professional field investigation, most cases cannot lead to a definite conclusion about the nature of the phenomena that gave rise to each specimen, but much can be learned from the methodology involved in such analysis. Furthermore, compilation of similar cases on an expanded basis may eventually lead to the discovery of underlying patterns.

Full article in PDF format here.



​

 

[Kandinsky]

I read this paper a few months back and it changed my opinion on the trace evidence samples. Prior to this I'd discounted the evidence as being misidentified or simple hoaxes. I'm more open-minded as a result.

I guess there's an expectation/assumption that anything extraterrestrial, or from 'elsewhere,' by definition must contain elements or isotopes unavailable on Earth. From a standard ETH point of view...maybe? Thinking a little more speculatively...why should they? We know very little about UFOs, we don't know their origins or possible manufacturing process (if they are machined objects) so is it reasonable to discount the few small samples we have?

Rather than discounting them wholesale, there's an aspect of doubt...an element of possibility.

Where Vallee describes the multiple UFO sighting and the resultant slag and aluminium trace evidence, it's quite intriguing. The frozen earth and police presence immediately after the event puts that incident in the 'maybe' pile.

Apart from Vallee's Paracast interview, there's more where he describes this incident and his endeavours to have the samples analysed... http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio2/ET%20and%20UFO/Jacques%20Vallee%20-%20UFOs%20etc%20%20-%20Coast%20To%20Coast%20AM%20-%20Feb%2012%202008.mp3

 

[Trajanus]

3) there is data to suggest that the specimen is in fact linked to the observed aerial object

​

I understand this was the problem with the Ubatuba samples. No actual witnesses corrobrated the exploding saucer story. Still, the analysis does suggest ET, if only because Dow chemical, while it could've made magnesium of comparable purity, wasn't doing so at the time, to our knowledge.
​