From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:24:45 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:08:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Creatures With No Business Here! - Gehrman


>From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:51:24 -0400
>Subject: Re: Creatures With No Business Here!

>Friends on the List, that is the fantasy of a self-deceiving
>'reporter'! In the first place, cristobalite is NOT a melt!

It's my opinion that Ray is reacting very much the debunker in
trying to refute my observations regarding the cameraman's crash
site. This is what he's told me both on List and in private
conversation, and during email exchanges: He and his wife
watched Fox's presentation back in 1995 and both his wife and he
thought the creature was a ridiculous fraud and both laughed
their heads off. He's never looked at it since. One viewing, so
much faith.

So he thinks the whole AA investigation is a huge waste of time,
and that all those who take the time to try to figure it out are
prone to "fantasy" and "self-deceiving".

In Ray's world this has to be so because he's convinced
that all AA evidence must be suspect, because the footage of
the creature is a hoax. So how could there be a secluded
desert location covered with 200,000 square yards of
cristobalite?

It just can't be so, no way and no how! Why? Because it just
can't be.

>Months ago I challenged Ed to produce for my inspection any
>desert sand, per se, from that site that is coated with
>cristobalite or even glass melt (which is what he originally
>claimed it to be). Of course, he did not provide it and cannot
>provide it, because it exists only in his fantasy of
>misinterpretation of what he was seeing.

Ray knows perfectly well why I never sent him a sample of the
bacterial mats or sand covered with cristobalite. He reneged on
our previous arrangement. I had requested help from the list in
identifying the strange material and he volunteered to do so. I
sent him the material with the understanding that he would test
it until he found out something definitive and during our phone
conversation he agree to do a micropix or whatever it took. But
then Ray took another look at the material and decided it was
agate. In fact he was so sure that he told me he'd "bet his life
on it"; he refused to do any further testing so I consulted Dick
Cheney and he advised me what to say. When the material was
finally identified as cristobalite, imagine Ray's surprise. He
still hasn't gotten over it. At least he didn't kill himself. I
understand errors in judgment and was more than willing to
forgive him, but he never asked for ablution.

>Frankly, I exposed Ed's
>B.S. about this many months ago.

You exposed exactly zero. Your posts on the subject were devoid
of content or understanding . Exactly what did you expose?

>Yet, like an evangelist, he
>keeps on running off at the mouth about beliefs of having found
>a UFO crash site, while revealing his petrological and
>geological ignorance.

That this point there should be some evidence, a simple
example of my "petrological and geological ignorance." I have
ten college units of Geology from UNM. And Ray has
how many?

>If any one of you is still willing to
>believe Ed's harangue about this, please do a bit of
>investigation for yourself, concerning the conditions in which
>cristobalite forms, or else read the following:

Ray doesn't have to copy and post stuff that anyone can read on
the web through simple searches. He knows perfectly well that I
understand these facts, or at least he should, unless he's
become severely retarded in his declining years.

>Determination of the presence of cristobalite in a rock
>constrains of the temperature range at which that rock
>crystallized. Cristobalite forms from molten rock at
>temperatures above approximately 1470 degrees Celsius to the
>boiling point of silica. Please note that pressure and water
>content will vary the crystallization range slightly, but the
>presence of cristobalite is a good indication of the extreme
>temperature at which a rock crystallized, simply because below
>1470 degrees Celsius and above 870 degrees Celsius, tridymite (a
>polymorph of quartz) is stable and will crystallize. Below 870
>degrees Celsius, beta quartz is stable and it will crystallize.
>Since a molten rock descends through various temperatures as it
>cools, all three polymorphs can be present, confusing the issue,

This information can be found in a simple search. Since I
mention it all in my report, I think it's a little simple minded
for Ray to repeat it as though this information is something
new.

>but Ed's samples indicate a rather stable temperature in the
>1470 degrees Celsius (and up to the boiling point of silica)
>range, for a period of time far more EXTENDED than would be
>available in any surface nuclear or thermonuclear blast or,
>surely, from the crash on any alien vehicle.

How do you know? That's what I keep insisting. This site is out
of this world. There's nothing like it anywhere in the world and
I challenge Ray to find a comparable site or conditions. I'll
bet him $1000 that he can't. Put up or shut up.

>As may be deduced from the above facts, Cristobalite cannot form
>on the earth's surface, because even if the temperature became
>high enough, the temperature exposure duration and
>crystallization period would be far inadequate. Even the heat of
>a nuclear bomb cannot create cristobalite on the earth's surface
>for the very same reason. As a geographically appropriate
>example of that fact, I have several large and small specimens
>on Trinitite (Trinitite is the New Mexico desert surface fusion
>product from the earth's first nuclear bomb explosion at Trinity
>Site in New Mexico on July 16, 1945, and not a great distance
>from where Ed fantasizes a UFO crashed and formed cristobalite
>on the surface.), and it is a melt consisting of glasses of
>varying composition, depending on the mineral(s) in the melt
>(primarily from quartz). Mostly, it consists of a gray to green
>glass, and cristobalite is not present and never formed, for the
>reasons explained above.

None of the above information is at all relevant to the
cameraman's crash site. This is a true red herring.

>Cristobalite's wide spread distribution in certain types of
>volcanic rocks provides an 'abundance rating' of at least
>'common', and the rock from which the crystalline samples Ed
>sent to me grow is in fact the volcanic rock rhyolite, the
>typical rock associated with cristobalite, and some of its
>fissures contain later-formed agate. The cristobalite and
>rhyolite from Ed's site is ancient (See below.), and those rocks
>are well known in that area of New Mexico.

Of course this is all total BS. In fact BS on top of BS. The
site is exactly the way I described it: 200,000 square yards of
cristobalite covering sand, gravel, bacterial mats, huge
boulders and exposed bedrock. And those are the facts.

The widespread cristobalite is the proof for an unusual
occurrence and Ray could see for himself in a few minutes if
he'd visit the site. He'd see that what I am saying is true and
that would be the end of the discussion.

>With help of friends at USGS, the specimens Ed claimed to be
>effects of a UFO crash have now been determined to have been
>derived from one of an outcropping cluster of five overlapping
>ignimbritic calderas pretty well surface-exposed in strongly
>extended, tilted fault-block hill (as shown in photos Ed sent
>me)

Which photos are you talking about. There were no faults in any
photo I sent you. You're just arguing from authority. Right! The
USGS. Are you such a fool? Did they visit the site. Did they
have the sample tested by XRD? You don't have any idea where the
site is located. How could the USGS make such a determination?

>and mountain ranges of the central Rio Grande rift southwest
>of Socorro, New Mexico (the location Ed gives for his fantasized
>"crash site"). That Socorro-Magdalena caldera cluster is 85
>kilometers long and 20-25 kilometers wide, paralleling the
>southeastern boundary of the Colorado Plateau and the WSI-
>trending San Augustin arm of the rift.

Is that so? And you didn't think I knew this?

>The 40Ar/39Ar (isotopic) age of sanidines from the rhyolite
>ignimbrites (from which Ed's crystals grow) varies at around 28
>million years - quite a bit older than July, 1947, I'd say.
>Forget the tree-ring dating, Ed! :)

You're just so funny! Your authorities don't have the
sightest idea of what they're talking about because they
haven't visited the site.

>Over 5,000 cubic kilometers of welded ignimbrite and moat-fill
>lavas erupted in the aforementioned caldera complex. Ed happened
>upon a nice fault-related outcropping of that mass, and nothing
>more. That's certainly nothing to get excited about, unless
>you're letting your imagination run away with you after viewing
>the "Alien Autopsy" film.

If you think my imagination has run away with me, take me up on
my $1000 bet, or make it $2000 if you're so sure that I'm wrong.
That would cover the dendrochronology. I'll send my $2000 check
to EBK to hold, if we can come up with the particulars. It's
certainly better than betting your life.

>Ed's claim of finding a 'mercury engine' UFO crash site heated
>into a coating of cristobalite is not only a fiction of his mind
>as proved by the facts and dating above, but utterly impossible
>for the thermal reasons explained.

Another piece of BS. I theorize that the vehicle's engine
is rotated heat applied to a mercury core. As the heat rotates in
one direction, the mercury rotates in the opposite direction
at a much faster rate and this creates the electromagnetic
vortex that's responsible for heating the desert sand and
depositing the cristobalite.

When the craft became incapacitated, the sand (silica) was
sucked into the vortex, heated to 1450 C and then deposited at
the site when it crashed. The material was pure cristobalite,
not agate or anything else. That's why this site is so unusual.
There is no other place in the world where a person can find
tons of pure cristobalite. Remember my XRD trumps any USGS
theorizing.

>Ed, it is time you stopped broadcasting your daydreams as
>scientific fact. And don't expect me to further entertain any
>more of your fantastic claims and arguments about this and your
>pseudoscientific declarations. With the good samples you
>provided me, it was not necessary to waste my time trekking to
>the site with you and/or your brother to learn of what the
>samples consisted, but thanks for the invitation

I guess you'll send me a copy of this report so I can analyze it
scientifically and judge for myself their speculations.

>If this was ever a science with you, Ed, it has ceased to be
>that, and seems to have become a religion. I'm probably foolish
>to even get involved trying to talk to anyone filled with such
>zeal as you display concerning this, but since I will be leaving
>this list in a few days in order to be involved with some other
>UFOlogical matters, I have taken this opportunity before I leave
>to at least let receptive list colleagues hear, "...the rest of
>the story...".

I can't begin to tell you how insulting your post is. And now
you're going to cut and run like some yellow-belly coward before
the last and most important skirmish?

>As to your suggested $2,000 dating of burned trees at the
>'site', as you proposed while saying, "The best test would be
>dendrochronology..." You really are quite funny! Even if it
>could be shown that the burned trees died in 1947, that would
>provide no evidence whatsoever that the source of the burn was a
>crashed UFO. That scheme is about as poorly thought out as the
>rest of your unfounded, self-serving 'deductions'.

I thought it was a clever and scientific concept since many
trees are still alive but badly burned and the PHD
dendrochronologist I contacted said the they could determine the
exact year of the heat disruption. This report would then be
added to the other scientific and circumstantial evidence I've
accumulated.

>So, forget the tree-ring thing. The only ring that you, Ed,
>should be concerned with right now is one to constrain your
>flights of fantasy in this matter.

It's your religious conviction that the AA is a hoax that clouds
your thinking and ability to understand that I've found the
crash site the cameraman described in detail. You must visit
the site to appreciate what is there. Do we have a bet or not?


Ed