Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jun -> UFO UpDate:Sarbacher, Roswell, nanotechnology - Was How many

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: DRudiak@aol.com
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:29:11 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:59:34 -0400
Subject: UFO UpDate:Sarbacher, Roswell, nanotechnology - Was How many



>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: "UFO Updates (E-mail)" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: how many fingers?
>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:18:14 -0400

> As for Sarbacher, didn't he say his involvement was minor, and
> confined to the early days of this alleged work? If he got drawn into
> the heart of it in the early '60s, as Corso seems to say, he never
> breathed a word of it.

According to Whitley Strieber, he phoned Sarbacher in 1986 shortly
before he died.  Sarbacher told him he wasn't peripherally involved,
as he had told others earlier, but had actually handled and analyzed
Roswell debris.

Allegedly he said that the structure of the "fabric" didn't become
apparent until the 1960s when they finally developed suitable
microscopics.

Historically, this would be the advent of the scanning electron
microscope in the 1960s (I'm not sure Strieber would have even known
about this instrument).  He said they found out that the fabric had
been "welded" or "machined" at the molecular level.

What I find interesting about this conversion is that Sarbacher was
describing what we now call nanotechnology, which is currently in
its infancy.  Go to the NASA Web page and start browsing around.  The
promise of nanotechnology, according to scientists working on it, is
the development of lightweight materials with superstrength, hardness,
and heat resistance.

When you assemble materials on an atom by atom basis, you can
eliminate the macroscopic flaws of ordinary materials that limit their
strength.  Computer quantum mechanical modeling predicts increases in
strength on the order of 70 to 80 times over today's best materials.
For example, a projected diamond/titanium composite would have unheard
of strength and heat resistance.  It would be harder than ordinary
diamond, meaning you couldn't scratch or drill it with diamond tools.

Currently "nanoscientists" are modeling molecular assemblers, miniscule
molecular machines powered by lasers, that can assemble materials in
any way you want.  This means that it will also be possible to make
"active" materials, that is materials which respond to the environment
in certain ways and with built-in intelligence.  For example, a
spaceship hull might be manufactured to repair itself if punctured by a
micrometeorite, just like our skin heals itself.

This sounds very much like the stuff described by Roswell witnesses.
The materials were lightweight, very strong and hard, being either
unbreakable in the field or couldn't be cut with knives, weren't
affected by ordinary flames, and in the case of the foil-like material,
had active properties.

The "foil" could be wadded up and would then return to its original
shape without wrinkling, or it could be hammered and the dent would
just pop out again.  This would be wonderful stuff to make an outer
hull with.

I would like to make another point, which I earlier tried to make
with Dennis Stacy, but got completely blown off.  Kent Jeffrey was
also arguing like Stacy in his recent debunking of Roswell.  The
argument they presented was that the materials recovered at Roswell
lacked the variety one would expect from an advanced craft.

My point was that this is actually what one would expect from an
advanced technology -- a minimum of  materials.  The current trend
of our technology is to increase function and complexity through
integration.  Hand wired 1950s mainframe computers with individual
transisters went to integrated circuits on circuit boards in the
1960s and finally to Pentium chips with 8 million transisters on a
chip.  Superficially a Pentium chip would like like a shiny black
wafer, and only when you place it under a microscope do you realize
that it is a very complex beast.

Recent advances in plastics have created conducting plastics,
semiconducting plastics, light-emitting plastics, batteries made of
plastic, etc.  In the not-to-distant future (like 20-30 years) we
will likely see flat screen TVs made entirely of plastic -- display,
electronics, and all.  Gone will be the picture tube and magnetic
coils, the circuit board with hundreds of individual components.
Gone too may be the controls.  Intelligence could be built-in, and
the whole thing could be voice activated and controlled.  It would
be one integrated unit.

The same sort of integration could be accomplished with the hull of
a spacecraft, or the interior cabins.  Sensors could be built-in,
as would lighting and controls.  New generations of daylight Stealth
aircraft, e.g., are rumored to have luminescent hulls, whose
lighting is controlled by built-in sensors, the purpose being to
render the planes virtually invisible to the eye by adjusting the
luminance of the plane to match background illumination.  (It's an
old WWII subhunting trick used by the Allies, that worked extremely
well.)

I think it is also quite obvious,  and has been for some time, that
saucers don't use a conventional propulsion system, and probably use
some form of intense electromagnetic propulsion along the lines of magnetohydrodynamics.

Again, such a propulsion system can be integrated right into the
structure of the craft.   So could the power storage, e.g. if the
hull was superconducting or used high energy capacitive storage or
had energy beamed to it remotely.  A magnetohydrodynamic concept
saucer currently under development at the Rensselaer Institute is
very much like this description.

Thus, we aren't likely to find fuel pumps, hoses, reactors, and
turbines lying around at a crash site.

Therefore I don't find Kent Jeffrey's or Dennis Stacy's argument
compelling for dismissing Roswell.  An advanced technology ship
could be made of a minimum of distinctive looking materials.  One
might even expect it, given our own technolgical trends in
integration.  Also, even materials which might look the same to
the eye, could conceal enormous complexity and differences in
function, if examined more closely under a microscope.  Remember,
all we have our reports from the field from various people of
shattered debris. They didn't cart a fully equipped laboratory
around with them.

David Rudiak