From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:39:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:43:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Crashed UFO Materials Analysis Reports? -


>From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:19:33 +0100
>Subject: Re: Crashed UFO Materials Analysis Reports?

>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:09:56 -0800
>>Subject: Re: Crashed UFO Materials Analysis Reports?

>>>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:47:47 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: Crashed UFO Materials Analysis Reports?

><snip>

>>Back in 2001, media promoter Chris Wyatt tried to breathe life
>>back into the Roswell chunk and was scheduled to hold a media
>>conference introducing the supposed piece of UFO crash debris.
>>He also had planned to do an InterNet UFO conference - only
>>$5.95, or something along those lines.

>>At first, it was made out to be some new discovery and Wyatt
>>gave me an 'exclusive' story on it. Things were fine and dandy
>>until it was revealed it was the same piece of metal from the
>>Roswell 50th that was introduced by Paul Davids and Derrel
>>Sims...

>So what?

>Do you mean that is was a piece of crap?

>What do you know about it, about the analysis?

>What happened to the scientist, Dr VernonClark, who performed
>the analysis?

>What happened to Chris Wyatt, his conference and his website
>projectUfocommunity.com?

>Who can answer these questions on this List?


Hi Gildas,

The entire episode at the Roswell 50th was little more than a
joke. In my opinion the principals involved in this tried to
rush through it as quickly as possible and get out of town.

Afterwards, the press and public were sent one way into the
lobby, while the others rushed out of a rear door to waiting
cars. I was there along with many others who watch this List,
and the event was a much-hyped failure.

Does that mean the research wasn't good? Well I found a site in
the UK that has the following write-up, which admittedly is
composed by a skeptic - this is clipped from:

http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/abwatch/aw4.html


-----

Crashing and burning at Roswell

I don't suppose Pendred will be interested in the real facts
about Dr Russell Vernon-Clark's 'scientific' analysis of Derrel
Sims' 'Roswell Debris' either (see AW3 and Alien Encounters 16).

Pressed by Albuquerque physicist Dave Thomas, Vernon-Clark has
backed off a long way from his Roswell 50th claim that "these
tests have far less error than... even the most sophisticated
DNA testing performed today". Since the original presentation he
has corrected "huge arithmetical errors", admitted he failed to
use a control of known isotopic origin, explained the Ge-75
problem by suggesting that the testers had confused Ge-75 with
other elements with a mass of 75 (yes, they didn't know what
element they were analyzing), and acknowledged that "the data
and possible alternative explanations should have been examined
with much greater rigor prior to a public announcement".

-----

If one can't find a scientist who can do the job correctly and
is willing to stand by their findings, then there's not a lot we
could ever hope for. But given the way this was handled, there
were obviously flaws in the process.


Steve