.
The Roswell Corner
Bensen Saler adds his thoughts on Roswell
Actually, Dr. Saler made his thoughts known in 1997 when he teamed with Charles Moore and Charles Ziegler to write the book: Roswell: Genesis of a modern myth. Paul Kimball was kind enough to present his interviews with Dr. Saler back in 2001 in audio format. He pretty much rehashed what was in the book but it is interesting to hear him discuss the Roswell storytelling and those involved with investigating the case.
Bragalia’s take on the San Augustin crash site
I thought the only person still stuck on the Barney Barnett story and the San Augustin crash was Stanton Friedman. Bragalia spins his usual take on the matter trying to resurrect Barnett’s story and make it sound credible. He then goes on to refer to a Doctor Herbert Dick as a liar. Dr. Dick was interviewed in the early 1990s and supposedly told researchers that he knew nothing about a UFO crash and, if he had, he would have told them. Bragalia points out that Dick stated in a 1947 document that he was on the plains of San Augustin between July 1 and 14th of that year. This implies that Dick was lying about being present at the UFO crash. The document states nothing about a UFO crash and only describes performing a dig in the area. One can easily point out that Dick only stated that he was not present at any ET craft recovery.
More second hand stories from “Firemen”
Mr. Bragalia continued his Roswell stories with news that various firemen stationed at Roswell were involved in the spaceship recovery. Does he provide documentation to prove this? Not exactly. He provides the affidavit of Robert Proctor, who mentions that one individual on the flight to Fort Worth stated they had debris from an alien spaceship. This individual also happened to be part of the base fire department/rescue team.
The rest of Bragalia’s article has more to do with second hand information from various people who knew somebody that was part of the fire department or other such nonsense. He ignores how Walter Haut stated to researchers back in the 1980s (before Roswell was something really special) that he was unaware of any unusual activity on base:
“Were you aware at the time of the recovery effort itself?” asked Schmitt.
“No, I was not.”
“So there was no activity on the base which indicated that.....” said Schmitt.
“Not that was known to the average people. Carry this one step further. It was never mentioned in a staff meeting. And I used to sit in all the staff meetings.” (UFO crash at Roswell p. 142)
One would think the use of the RAAF fire department off base MIGHT be mentioned at the staff meetings. For some reason, it was not.
When Bragalia produces some actual records of the base fire department responding to the “crash”, I will be impressed. Until then, it is the usual rumor mill presented as some sort of fact. Politics as usual?
Bragalia’s next article describes how politicians keep dropping hints about the ET presence and Roswell. His prize find was a photo of Hillary Clinton walking around with a book called “Are we alone”. If Roswell was such a cornerstone of the conspiracy, shouldn’t she be carrying “Witness to Roswell” or some other book of great Roswell importance? Bragalia is making mountains out of ant hills. Of course this is UFOlogy, where just about anything can be accepted as fact as long as it supports aliens and conspiracies. 14% of Randle’s readers think the Alien Autopsy film is possibly real in some way!
Kevin Randle seemed shocked that 14% (78/544) of his readers thought the “Alien Autopsy” film had something “real” or “authentic” in it. One would think that Mr. Randle should know it is very hard to let go of cherished beliefs. He would not let go of Frank Kaufmann for over a decade until it was proven categorically that he was lying. Before that, a great many people had expressed doubts in Frank Kaufmann but Kevin Randle defended him in several of his books. On page 269 of his book, Conspiracy of Silence, he would state, ”For those who don’t believe the testimony, they should initiate their own search...What they will find is that Kaufmann is telling the truth.” Some of his readers are just taking a page from his book. That being to accept what they want as the truth despite being presented with evidence that it is not.
Quelle: SUNlite 4/2010
.
The Roswell Corner
Change is good....isn’t it?
Dennis Balthaser claims there needs to be a change in leadership at Roswell’s UFO museum. Apparently, Julie Shuster (who is Walter Haut’s daughter) is a control freak and had a problem with the city’s celebration plans. Bathalasar wants a house cleaning but really has no say on the matter. It appears that Shuster could care less what Balthaser has to say about this. Anything this controversial probably involves large sums of money.
Texas fishing
James Carrion had some interesting commentary and information regarding the travels of the head of the Army Air Force, General Carl Spaatz in July 1947. The public news record puts Spaatz in Tacoma, Washington on the 7th and then arriving in Corpus Christi, Texas for a fishing trip on the evening of the 10th. Carrion ponders where the General was during the interim, when the Roswell story broke. If you believe all the Roswell stories, Spaatz would have known about the incident long before July 7th so he would have cancelled all of his public appearances and returned to Washington (or possibly Roswell) to supervise the greatest event that ever happened. Instead, he just continued business as usual. Now Carrion seems to think that Spaatz was hidden away between the 8th and 9th during the controversy. Perhaps he went to Wright field or some other location. I think it is far more likely that Spaatz was enjoying some time off and taking a leisure trip around the country in his B-17 with occasional stops. After all, according to Carrion, he only flew from near San Antonio on the 10th. Why didn’t he fly from Fort Worth or Roswell?
Fort Worth photography
Kevin Randle brought up some issues regarding the number of photographers at Fort Worth taking photographs of the debris. Ron Regehr stated that a study was done that showed the photographs were taken with a different camera lens, which implied a third photographer (James Bond Johnson and, apparently, the base Public Information Officer being the other two). David Rudiak argued that the study did not account for the photographer repositioning himself. The end result of the exchange was that the study appeared to draw an invalid conclusion. I am sure James Bond Johnson would have been happy to hear that his legacy was still intact.
Trying to crash an alien spaceship
Anthony Bragalia discussed all the variables that could have caused the UFO to crash at Roswell. His article’s title indicated he knew “how” it happened. However, he just examines all sorts of possibilities and offers no proof of “how” it occurred. As always, he is just performing speculation based on the Roswell mythology. Besides some sort of super secret ray gun (which there is no proof of existing), he also ponders more conventional explanations. Two of them have become part of Roswell folklore but are they accurate? Since nobody else seems to be interested in fact-checking his articles, I guess I should.
The first is that a thunderstorm made the UFO crash. This has been the standard UFO mantra since the original story surfaced back in the 1970s. Are we supposed to believe that a craft that can outmaneuver any conventional aircraft and navigate the interstellar void can not withstand a simple thunderstorm? Apollo 12 survived a lightning strike during its liftoff to the moon. Why can’t an advanced alien spaceship do the same?
Mr. Bragalia claims he has evidence that there were thunderstorms in the Foster Ranch area in early July (Specifically the4dates of July 2nd and 4th). Unfortunately, the Albuquerque Journal’s weather observations do not cover the Foster Ranch area. The nearest observations are for Carrizozo and Roswell. Both stations do not record any rainfall for the time period of 2-4 July, 1947. The best you get is the time period ending on the evening of the 1st showing a “trace” of rain for both stations. Weather maps from the time period (see next page) also indicate there was little thunderstorm activity in New Mexico. This does not mean that no thunderstorm could have occurred. However, it does indicates there is no evidence to support Bragalia’s claim (He never presents any weather data). You can not state that a thunderstorm DID occur unless you have proof, which has yet to be done.
The other item Bragalia presents is that the radar could have affected the UFO. I am unaware of radar ever causing any aircraft to crash or affect any electronics in an aircraft. Even the most powerful radar beams are incapable of doing this (otherwise there would be an effort to develop radar as a weapon). To state that some really primitive low power radar sets available in the 1940s would be able to influence the flight of a supposed advanced technology spacecraft is quite the assumption. Maybe he is taking a hint from the movie, “Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers”, where an electronic device is used to attack the saucer’s propulsion systems.
In his “theory” regarding Radar stations, Mr. Bragalia states there was a secretiveradar network located in New Mexico in 1947. The real facts are that Radar stations were few and far between in the United States during the late 1940s. According to Naval Historian, David F. Winkler, an array of air defense radars were only in the planning stage in July of 1947. He states that at the end of 1947, Air defense command only operated two radars (Arlington, Washington and Half-moon bay, California) in the entire United States! Winkler’s research also notes that there were no permanent radar stations (beyond what was in use at White Sands for V-2 launches/MOGUL) in the entire state of New Mexico until 1949! The 636th AC&W squadron did establish temporary radar stations (with AN/TPS-1B sets) at Roswell and Kirtland as early as 1948 but the actual permanent stations did not get established until 1949-1950.
.
This is a list Winkler provides of all the radar sites that were permanent air defense radar installations for New Mexico and when they became operational:
Radar site
Year operational
Kirtland/West Mesa
1949
Los Alamos/El vido/Tierra Amarillo
1950
Walker/Roswell
1950
Moriarity
1952
Gonzales/Continental divide
1952
Las Cruces
1955
Gallup
1963
Silver City/Cliff
1972
.
None of the radar sites Bragalia lists were even close to the Foster Ranch, where the UFO supposedly met its demise and it appears that they were not operational in 1947. There is no indication that any of these sites were classified in the manner he describes (i.e. secretive locations where locals were paid off or told not to discuss them).
As a side note, the station he refers to as “the continental divide” was called Gonzales Air Force Station and was not operational until 1952. The land was not even purchased by the USAF until 1950!
.
Quelle: 5/2010
.
Trying to keep the Roswell-Nitinol boat afloat
Last spring, I had received a copy of the holy grail of Roswell-Nitinol mythology. The first progress report of Titanium alloy research by the Battelle Memorial Institute, which supposedly contained an analysis of the metal obtained from the UFO crash at Roswell, was to finally reveal its secrets. Strangely, there is no mention of Roswell, exotic metals, Nitinol, or shape memory alloys (SMAs). In fact, it was so mundane a report, I assumed that the Nitinol-Roswell gibberish would die a quick death. That was not to be. Highlighted by an e-mail to me that referred to my previous “analysis” as “ill-informed” and “weak”, Anthony Bragalia released another misleading and exaggerated column of how Nitinol was created because of Roswell. Despite claiming he addresses all my previous arguments, he really ignores them and repeats the same exaggerations he made previously as well as adding some new ones.
Trying to keep Center relevant
I had previously noted that Bragalia’s depiction of events regarding Center’s supposed encounter with the Roswell material had been wrongly reported. He still does this by stating Center examined the metal even though the original story was he deciphered hieroglyphics. Now, he supposedly found the source of this story and talked to him. As the reader may recall, I mentioned the source of this story in SUNlite 1-3 and it was an article written by William Jones and Dr. Irene Scott called “The Ohio UFO crash connection and other stories”. They interviewed a young man, who was dating Center’s daughter and was in high school at the time (Bragalia called him a close friend/professional associate of Center’s in his original articles). The man is named “Nick Nickerson” and Bragalia claims he worked at Battelle and had quite an impressive resume’. Nick Nickerson’s other claim to fame is exposing the Zanesville UFO photographs hoax by getting the photographer to confess. This supposedly demonstrates Nickerson’s honesty.
The problem I have with all of this, is that we have no biography of Nickerson to examine. Does he have any scholarly articles on his area of expertise? I could not find anything but I really did not try hard. Why should I? It is up to Bragalia to back up his claims with something concrete. A lot of people claim to be a lot of things in UFOlogy. Some turn out to be true and others do not. Last SUNlite, I described how a gentleman was able to fool quite a few knowledgeable people into thinking he was a naval officer. Who is to say if this is not the case here?
In the original article, Scott and Jones stated that the individual they interviewed was not employed by Battelle. That seems to be a bit of conflicting information unless Jones/Scott chose to lie in their article about the gentlemen’s involvement in Battelle. Is it a big red flag? Not really but it something that does need to be addressed.
Another problem is that the Zanesville case was exposed as a hoax by Everitt Merritt, a photogrammetrist employed by Raytheon. NICAP sent him the prints and he analyzed them finding fatal flaws in the images showing that the story told by the photographer had serious inaccuracies. When the Condon study attempted to contact the photographer, he did not respond. If Nickerson obtained the confession, it was probably after all this had occurred. At that point, it was like shooting fish in a barrel.
I do not doubt there is a Nick Nickerson and he may or may not have worked at Battelle. However, it is only his word that Center told this story. Center has no diaries and no papers suggesting he was involved in such a case. That kind of evidence coupled with the extraordinary nature of the testimony, makes it less than convincing as a “confession”.
Metal testing 101
Bragalia likes to sound like he knows something about metallurgy. However, he doesn’t because he continues to misrepresent the terms used to evaluate and test ALL metals and alloys. According to his article, by testing for “elongation” (used to create stress-strain curves on a given metal) and “minimum bend radius” (used to measure how much a metal can bend before being damaged), the Battelle team was trying to evaluate alloys for shape memory characteristics. Suggesting they were specifically testing for SMAs by measuring these values demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject or a desire to deceive the reader. When I mentioned this in the Reality Uncovered forum, Bragalia made a hit and run post where he stated that he knows they are “sometimes” standard tests. I responded that there is no “sometimes” about it. The bottom line is they are not specifically used to measure shape memory characteristics and their mention in the progress reports is standard for any alloy.
According to Bragalia’s post in the Reality Uncovered forum, General Exon stated that these specific tests were done on the Roswellian metal. I pushed him on this but he did not respond. What Exon had actually stated was that they had performed various tests on the metal with no specifics. If any metal sample was given to a lab for evaluation, no matter what the source, it would be exposed to all these measurements and tests.
Drink up me hearties
Why let the facts stand in the way of a good story…right? This recent article simply repeats, with a few additions, most of the claims in his previous articles, which ignored or misrepresented many facts.
Bragalia states that Nitinol was not the actual Roswellian metal but the government’s efforts to duplicate it. He continuously attempts to make this link by suggesting that the second progress report was fed to the Navy labs so they could construct Nitinol. The evidence he uses is a 1972 technical report about Nitinol written over a decade after Nitinol was created. It was only mentioned because the author was describing the history of Titanium-Nickel research.
Craighead, Fawn and Eastwood6 (1949) carried out a limited study of the Ti-Ni phase diagram up to approximately 11.5 at.% nickel within a limited temperature range but did not define the eutectic or eutectoid temperatures.1
This one statement is the only reference Dr. Wang made concerning the second progress report. It is a statement of fact and offers no additional information suggesting that the second progress report was instrumental in creating Nitinol.
As noted above, the “recipe” for Titanium-Nickel in (Bragalia’s catch phrase for the Phase diagram) the second progress report is inadequate for creating Nitinol. This is plain and simple. Had Battelle “fed” this report to Buehler, he would have been unable to do anything with it. The research was over a decade old and it contained nothing that could help Buehler and his team. There were far more extensive phase diagrams and research on Titanium-Nickel that would have been more useful.
Exaggerating further, Bragalia states the following:
Battelle seemed to control the fate of Nitinol after its “discovery” at the US Naval Labs. NASA -working with Battelle - also has been shown to have immediately taken over direction of further “characterization” studies of the material (a fact that Wang’s Nitinol co-inventor, William Buehler, complained about in an oral history.)2
Compare this to what William Buehler states in the oral history he appears to be referencing:
Technology Transfer: Awareness of NITINOL’s unique combination of properties quickly radiated outside NOL. This occurred mainly through technical reports, presentations, various forms of media coverage and NOL’s Technical Information Organization. Let me cite just a few examples of the key organizations that became involved. NASA independently sponsored two major characterization studies, one at Battelle Memorial Institute (under Dr. Curt Jackson) and a second at Goodyear Aerospace Corporation (under William Cross). Dr. George Andreason, DDS, Professor at the University of Iowa, using some variable composition NITINOL wires, started studying its use as an orthodontic bridge (arch) wire. Raychem Corporation (under Jack Harrison) independently developed the successful hydraulic couplers for the then new U.S. Navy’s F-14 jet aircraft. These very low transition temperature ternary alloy couplers were expanded radially in liquid nitrogen and then, on warming to room temperature, radially contracted with great force coupling the connecting pipes. The coupler was Trade Marked “Cryofit.” Raychem also developed an electronic connector called “Cryocon”
These were some of the early technical accomplishments during the super active and harried 1960’s. Following these lines of activity, the medical people were starting to show some interest. That initial interest was primarily under Lt.Col. C. A. Heisterkamp, MD., at Walter Reed and Dr. James Hughes, MD., an orthopedic surgeon at Johns Hopkins. This early medical research activity ultimately led to the many very important special medical devices employed today...3
This is not the picture that Bragalia paints in his article. In these recollections, Buehler is not “complaining” at all. He seems proud that a lot of people showed interest in Nitinol Bragalia’s claims that Battelle “controlled the fate of Nitinol” is completely false. Buehler makes it clear that a lot of people, besides Battelle and NASA, had access to Nitinol and its “secrets”.
As one can see by these examples, what Bragalia tells the reader and what actually happened are sometimes two different things. This is why I am concerned when he starts telling people about his “interviews”. For instance, he told me that Dr. Linus Pauling died “obsessed” about UFOs. I contacted Dr. Robert Paradowski, a friend of Pauling and his biographer, and he told me this was not the case. He described Pauling’s interest in the subject as “mild” and sometimes “skeptical”. To add to this, Bragalia ties Pauling in with Roswell research because he made a brief one day visit to Battelle on February 7, 1951, where he gave a lecture. This tabloid style of investigation is meant to get eager readers to believe what he writes without having to establish facts or present sources.
Something completely different
According to Bragalia, General Exon stated the Roswell metal included an alloy comprised of “specially processed Titanium” and another metal.4 He provides no quotes. The closest I could find is in the book, Witness to Roswell, where Exon is quoted as saying,
I don’t know, at that time, if it was titanium or some other metal... or if it was something they knew about and the processing was something different.5 (my emphasis in bold)
Note that there is no mention of alloying Titanium with another metal. He uses the word “or” not “and”. Exon appears to be just guessing and unsure as if he had no direct knowledge of what he is describing. This is certainly not the convincing statement that Bragalia repeats over and over again. Once again, we have Mr. Bragalia stating things that are not entirely accurate in order to get his readers to buy what he is selling.
A “Secret” UFO Investigator
Bragalia likes to think that anybody who comes in contact with UFO reports or the subject suddenly becomes a “secret” UFO investigator. The latest person to get this label is the Chief of Naval Research in 1948, Rear Admiral Thorwald Solberg. Bragalia proclaims that the Admiral must have known something about Roswell and Titanium because he wrote the foreword to the 1948 Titanium Symposium proceedings. What Bragalia never mentions is that the Office of Naval Research (ONR) sponsored this symposium. Since Solberg was the head of ONR, it makes reasonable sense he would write the forward and be very involved in Titanium research! Is Bragalia really claiming that anybody involved with Titanium research had some knowledge about Roswell? Knowing how the interservice rivalries are, it is hard to believe that the USAF would even allow the US Navy a hint that they had an actual alien spaceship in their possession!
To link Solberg with UFOs and Roswell, he produced a document that refers to Charles Moore’s 1949 sighting, where the Chief of Naval Research is listed in the header (under “via”). As is typical in almost all of Bragalia’s research, he does not bother to explain the document to the reader. The content of the document is from the Commanding Officer, Captain Ruhsenberger, of special devices center of Long Island, NY. Charles Moore’s report had been submitted to the commanding officer because he was associated with the ONR program SKYHOOK. Since this command was under the jurisdiction of the Office of Naval Research, it would have to go through the Chief of Naval Research’s desk (“via”) to make it to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) as required by the chain of command. It was also sent to the Office of Naval Investigations (which had an interest in UFO reports). This does NOT make Admiral Solberg a “secret UFO investigator” UNLESS, he was personally involved in the investigation. There is no evidence to suggest this. Bragalia states he intends to write a further article about Solberg’s UFO investigations/activities. If this is the best he has, it is weak to say the least. I am sure this future article will involve more misleading arguments where speculation is presented as fact.
Believing=Learning?
In the meat of Bragalia’s article, he makes several claims about the progress reports, where he states that “we” have “learned” various items from each of the reports. “Learning” indicates establishment of fact. Bragalia establishes very few facts (if any) in his articles so it is only Bragalia telling us what he thinks he found. He tends to repeat himself over and over again so you will have to bear with me repeating some of the same things.
Battelle had suddenly - after the Ro• swell crash - undertaken to perfect melting and “metal mixing” techniques and to create purity-levels for Titanium never before attempted. (Ultra-high purity Titanium is required to make memory metal).
High purity Titanium is required for ALL alloys and not just Nitinol. While Battelle was perfecting their processes, other groups were also attempting to perfect their own processes so they did not introduce oxygen. To state that Battelle was the only group doing this is ignoring the history of Titanium alloy research.
This all did not happen “suddenly” after the Roswell crash unless Bragalia can demonstrate that people were not concerned about Titanium until immediately after July 1947. This is not the case because Air Material command started their Titanium studies in March of 1947 (BEFORE the Roswell crash). The Navy started their studies about the same time and the Army had started such work in late 1946. Bragalia presents absolutely no evidence that these studies started “suddenly” after Roswell.
Elroy Center was applying his new • techniques for micro-analysis of novel Titanium alloy.
Center co-wrote one paper in this document where he discussed chemical testing the oxygen content in Titanium. There is nothing in this document that states he was micro-analyzing any Titanium alloys and that the techniques used to conduct these analyses were new. The same type of micrographs and analysis on alloys was being performed elsewhere. Therefore, they were not unique or “new”. The same can be said for these “novel” Titanium alloys. These alloys were not new or unique because others had already begun to attempt them (see the Titanium Symposium papers by P.R. Mallory and company).
First-ever attempts at alloying Tita• nium with Nickel and other metals were made, including an expanded Titanium-Nickel “Phase Diagram” - the recipe for memory metal.
Bragalia keeps using the catch phrase of “recipe for memory metal” but it has been 19shown that the phase diagram produced was not sufficient for creating Nitinol. It is the same thing as saying you have a recipe for cake and it says to use eggs. You can’t make a specific cake with just being told to use eggs.
Additionally, as I pointed out in SUNlite 1-3, the Bureau of Mines had alloyed the two metals in 1948 and wrote a paper about it in the Titanium symposium. Their phase diagram was far more extensive than the diagram found in the second progress report. P.R. Mallory and Company was also alloying Titanium and Nickel. Additionally, Dr. Wang documents that H. J. Wallbaum and his associates were investigating the Titanium-Nickel phase diagram as far back as 1938! Using the terms “first ever” and “explanded” are an exaggeration on the grandest scale and shows ignorance of the documented history of this alloy.
The report examines other Ti alloys • that were later investigated by Wright Patterson for shape-recovery potential (including TiZr)
In no area of these progress reports, does it mention investigating an alloy for “shape recovery potential”. Therefore, one can not conclusively say this was what they were looking for.
“Elongation” and “Minimum Bend Ra• dius” tests were performed, indicating possible interest in morph-potential. Wright’s General Exon recounted to author Kevin Randle similar tests being conducted on the Roswell material.
As I noted previously, there is nothing unusual about testing materials for “elongation” and “minimum bend radius” and they are not tests designed to specifically look for “morph/shape recovery potential”.
One of the report’s authors (Lynn East• wood) had as his boss Battelle’s UFO-involved Dr. Howard Cross. Eastwood supervised Elroy Center confessor tothe crash.11
Dr. Cross’ involvement in the Battelle study on UFOs did not start until 1952 under Project Stork. There is no evidence that Cross was involved in UFOs in 1949. As pointed out previously, in that report, it was stated that there was no physical evidence to examine (something I pointed out in SUNlite 1-3)! If they had examined materials from a spaceship crash, they would not have made this statement.
These men all worked at Battelle as scientists. It would not be unusual that they worked together on a project involving alloys and testing them. Dr. Center, a chemist employed by Battelle, was specifically used as a chemist to perform chemical testing for oxygen content, which is not unusual.
The work of the First Progress Report • was similar to that of the Second. First-time ever work on characterization, melting, purification and diagramming of novel Ti alloys were conducted. 12
It already has been established that Titanium had been alloyed with other metals before work by Battelle had started.
The report’s cover letter is signed by • LW (Lynn) Eastwood, whose direct superior was UFO-involved Dr. Howard Cross. Eastwood supervised Elroy Center, who confessed to debris analysis.13
There is no evidence to suggest that Eastwood, in 1949, had any idea that Cross was going to be involved in a UFO study that did not start until 1952 and no evidence that Eastwood had any idea that Center had supposedly attempted to decipher Roswellian hieroglyphics.
The report was done at the request of • one J.B. Johnson, Chief of the Metallurgy Division at Wright Field in 1947. J.B. Johnson was supervised by Major General LC Craigie, Director of USAF R&D and the Engineering Division. Craigie’s personal pilot (Ben Games) was interviewed by this author and by reporter Billy Cox in 2008. Games states that he had personally flown Craigie to Roswell Army Air Field immediately after the crash and then flew him to visit with President Truman.14
The report was done because it was a contract that had to be fulfilled with the USAF (not Johnson). Johnson may have had input on what he wanted in the report but it was not his specific request that such a study was done.
As for Craigie and Roswell, there are no records to confirm Games flight and the flight records state that Craigie was elsewhere. Craigie’s visit is also not entered in the unit history of the 509th air group for July 1947. It is a story told by one individual that records show is not true.
Additionally, Craigie became the commandant of the Air Force institute of technology on 3 September 1948. The USAF institute of technology was part of the air university and not associated with R&D in 1949 when this work was done. Therefore, at the time of the testing, Craigie was not involved in supervising Johnson.
Johnson appears to have facilitated • the delivery of the metal ingots for the Battelle study and to have directed the submission and order of the Progress Reports. Johnson’s behind the scenes involvement indicates that these studies were of high priority and urgency.15
Johnson did not become very involved in “facilitating” deliver of ingots for the Battelle study. The ingots were made at Battelle for use at Battelle. In only one instance did Johnson “facilitate” delivery of ingots. Battelle provided two Titanium alloy ingots, at Johnson’s request, to E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. There is not much to get excited about that. Saying Johnson was working “behind the scenes” seems to be an embellishment since he is mentioned in the report several times. If he wanted to be “behind the scenes”, he would have made sure his name was not in the reports.
It is important to note that the documentation does not indicate a higher priority than any other study being done at the time. If making Nitinol was such a “high priority” and “urgent”, why didn’t Battelle create it right away with all the information they supposedly had at their disposal? Why did they have to involve the Navy a decade later to make it happen? Contrary to what Bragalia states, there is no indication of any urgency in these reports.
Elroy Center’s work on Titanium pu• rity (essential to make memory metal) is amplified on by scientists Mallett, Thomas and Griffith. They cite the work of one EJ Chapin of the Metallurgy Division of the Naval Research Laboratories where Nitinol was later said to have been developed.16
Mallett, Thomas and Griffith were not “amplifying” anything Center had done. They were trying to determine oxygen content in Titanium using a method not attempted by E. J. Center. Their paper was for vacuum-fusion analysis of Titanium for Oxygen. They began testing using this method because Chapin and (for some reason not mentioned by Bragalia) Dr. G. Derge at the Carnegie Institute of Technology were reporting success with this method.
Meanwhile, Dr. Center’s work on Titanium involved investigating what was called the Chlorine-Carbon Tetrachloride method for determining oxygen content. The first report had already concluded the test was not satisfactory. It was recorded in the second report only to give a description of the techniques and equipment used. Center and Eckert write in the second report:
On the basis of results discussed above, it is concluded that the carbon tetrachloride-chlorine method is impractical for determination of small amounts of oxygen in titanium metal....
Most important to note is that this is the only section written by Center. For somebody who had supposedly had inside knowledge on the Roswell debris, he seems to have been assigned work that had little to do with trying to create a shape memory alloy (as Bragalia suggests what this study is for). All Center was assigned to do involved his job description as a chemist and nothing more.
A major discrepancy is found in the • report and appears in the following, “The present data do not justify further investigation of binary Titanium-Germanium or Titanium Nickel alloys.” However, this was not the case. In Battelle’s Second Progress Report, we find that work was indeed continued on Titanium-Nickel alloy, to include feverish work on an extended “phase diagram,” methods for melting Titanium,developing purification and micro-analysis techniques, etc. This is more than curious and it seems to indicate that Wright Patterson in fact was hell-bent on having the work continued. In fact results of these continued studies appeared in its next report for Wright under Wright’s direction and insistence.18
This is another case of overstatement and misleading the reader. Bragalia apparently did not read the entire report or ignored what it stated. In the second progress report, they do explain why the two alloys are mentioned:
In the previous report, data on the mechanical properties and the response to heat treatment and aging of Titanium-Germanium and Titanium-Nickel alloys were listed in tables 1 and 2. The microscopic examination of specimens of these alloys, quenched from temperatures of 1450, 1550, 1600, 1650, 1700, and 1750F., has now been completed.19
This indicates that some of the data from testing the alloys was unavailable at the time of the first progress report. Since the reports are written to include all data (you just don’t throw it out), they presented the rest of the information. This just closed the book on these alloys. No new alloys of these two metals were created after those described in the first progress report. The only discrepancy seems to be Bragalia’s inability to understand what he is reading or his attempts to mislead the reader with erroneous information.
“Super Genius?”
After all of this speculation we are suddenly exposed to why somebody like Bragalia has unearthed the greatest secret never kept:
You must be sharp to discern the tangled web that has been woven. No document
The presence of the phase diagram in the second progress report had already been mentioned in Dr. Wang’s paper and the testing of Titanium for purity could easily be inferred. However, there was very little in the second progress report that covered this alloy and it made no mention of shape recovery studies contrary to what he predicted. Meanwhile, his prediction about the first progress report being the study of actual Roswellian metal was completely out of touch with reality.
After seeing the first progress report was no smoking gun for researching Roswellian debris, Bragalia now makes the claim that the examination of that material was highly classified and would never make it into some progress report or even mentioned. Any documents about studying this exotic material or references to it would not be mentioned in any of these studies/reports about Titanium and Nickel. The Battelle institute as well as the US military would make it appear as if the Roswellian metal never existed or was never studied at all. Hmm......wouldn’t the same thing happen if there never was an alien spaceship crash at Roswell? This kind of rationalizing away inconvenient facts is simply amazing. It demonstrates that Bragalia is preaching to the choir despite the fact that his Roswell-Nitinol ship has already sunk.
Carey, Thomas J. and Donald R. 5. Schmitt.. Witness to Roswell. Franklin you will ever see will outright declare that ET metal is here. Instead, one must carefully examine the contracts, connections and context of Shape Recovery research to understand its relation to Roswell. Like a sleuth, one must “back-track” the emergence of shape-memory metal. If one does this by studying its history, the documents that are available to us and the testimony of those involved - the truth becomes evident.20
The implication here is that Bragalia considers himself much smarter than the people who wrote the history surrounding Nitinol. Does he really believe that all of these people have ignored these “obvious” clues for all of these years until he came along? I guess you do have to be “sharp” to twist, alter, and misrepresent these reports in a way that gets people to believe this nonsense is accurate historical research.
The tale of the tape
I think it is important for readers to recognize how inaccurate Bragalia has been in predicting what these Progress reports were supposed to contain. He originally wrote:
This is because if it does contain “phase diagrams” for the alloying of Nickel and Titanium- it will confirm the work on memory metal. It would strongly suggest
that shape-recovery alloys were precisely what Battelle was attempting to create for the military in the time period directly after the Roswell crash....
Based on the sections of the studies that were found that reference this Battelle report- we know that this “progress report” offers the first “phase diagram” ever produced to attempt to successfully alloy Titanium and Nickel. This would be required to make memory metal. We can also infer that it examined refinement of Titanium to high purity levels. High purity Titanium is required to create the shape-recovery effect.
No references have ever been located to something that must surely exist- Battelle’s “First Progress Report” on the memory metal. While the Second Progress Report (completed in 1949) refers to techniques to process the alloy, the First Progress Report (authored in 1947 or 1948) probably relates to the actual analysis of “Roswellian” memory metal.
Quelle: SUNlite 5/2010