This won't be much of a blog entry, but while reading a DATA-NET from late 1969, there was a lengthy coverage [for them] item on the VERY strange "Toledo OR Lights", or as the DATA-NET article listed them, Siletz, OR , October 9th, 1969. [this date is apparently meant to indicate the date of some "recent" appearances of the Lights, as the famous "wall-crawling donuts" allegedly took place in March of 1966].
I wrote about these things a long time ago on the blog [ back in May, I think, of 2010]. You can go back there and re-read, but this DATA-NET article gives a somewhat different coverage, though consistent and no less strange. The main appearance of the mysterious light phenomenon was associated with a family and their home. It could seem suspicious but several other persons witnessed the weirdness right with them. The pinnacle of strangeness was that donut-shaped lights crawled around walls inside the home despite no known light sources and a concerted effort to block all windows. I'm going to let you click on the DATA-NET article and read of the main incidents and other "UFO" encounters which might or might not be related. The article gives more context perhaps, but does nothing to solve the mystery.
I was idly wondering about the trace evidence incidents the other day. On rare occasions, witness or witnesses see a disc-shaped object that ejects some (typically) molten material before leaving the scene of the crime (littering or fly-tipping).
ReplyDeleteIn these cases, somebody collects samples of the material and, occasionally, tests are done to identify what the heck it is. Without exception, the analyses show material that could conceivably be manufactured according to the sharpest edge of the technology at the time.
Purity tends to be high and yet isotopic analysis (if done) reveals nothing exotic or off-world origin. Doubts are raised and the subject is pushed to one side because, despite the circumstances, the sample isn't extraordinary. I reckon it's reasonable to do so.
At the same time, I have a lingering notion that the terrestrial origins of this matter needn't rule out an exotic origin in manufacture. These light metals aren't readily available in their purer form and those with access to them would know that their peers would be able to identify them as Earthly and border-line mundane.
If so, to what end would they seek to fool people when identification of the material was inevitable? I realise I'm drifting towards begging the question and yet the frequency of these light (reactive and soft) metals may well mean something. I'm just thinking aloud.
I'm having a deja vu moment here because my head is telling me that I've answered a similar question for someone not long ago ... but apparently not on this blog as I've made a cursory look. A few inadequate points:
ReplyDeletea). most alleged UFO debris artifacts are not light metals like Magnesium or Aluminum. Most test out as forms of slag or something in that area. The old UFO Researcher Lee Munsick pointed out the odd number of "slagfall" cases way back in the 1950s.
b).The spectacular claimed UFO debris pieces have been Ubatuba Magnesium and Campinas Lead/Tin, plus the modern claimants to being Roswell debris, which are also usually something like Magnesium. The so-called "Ohio Artifact" of the late sixties was also mainly Magnesium.
c).None of these were particularly hard to manufacture element wise though [i.e. purity was not really outstanding]. Peter Sturrock's isotope analysis of Ubatuba [as well as Dow/Condon's] DID seem out of normal Earth range though.
d). as to the possible use of light metals in aero-tech, of course we [the USAF] agree with the aliens on that, although we are now moving to greater use of composites for everything. Some speculators have guessed that the alien disk technology would/could have a framed skin of very light metals upon which field strengths were generated. When the Roswell object went haywire, it skipped the ground shattering this skin and leaving the famous debris, they say.