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 -> 1999 -> Mar -> Re: Michael Wolf's Samples in Italy

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 02:20:48 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 08:52:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Michael Wolf's Samples in Italy


>From: Francisco Lopez <d005734c@DC.SEFLIN.ORG>
>To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
>Subject: Michael Wolf's Samples in Italy
>Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:24:36 -0500

>Via: Skywatch International Inc. <skywatch@ltlb.com>
>From: Bill Hamilton [mailto:skywatcher22@hotmail.com]


With all due respect, these Italian "analyses" do not make any
sense at all. The percentages 99.9% and 0.01% DO NOT ADD UP so
the alleged 0.01% of "ET isotope" or "unknown" is nonsensical
and certainly does NOT confirm the "trustworthiness and
credibility" of Wolf or "further increase the value of all his
sayings" -- if he used the same erroneous 0.01% figure that is
embarrassingly due to a failure of grade-school math.  There is
no mention at all of WHAT alleged laboratory analyses were
carried out to supposedly identify the "isotopes" (wrong
terminology, there are only isotopes of the same element, but
nuclides of differing elements).  What were the percentages of
the different Si (silicon) isotopes Si 28, Si 29 and Si 30?
Were they of normal naturally-occurring abundance?

If you're going to go into all this length of text with
percentages then the alleged "most advanced laboratory devices"
should be stated along with sensible details, otherwise spare us
the irrelevant banter and backscratching.

I'm sorry to say but if anyone tested the sample on a mass
spectrometer and tried to claim there was 0.01% (or 0.1%)
"unknown" they'd be laughed out of scientific meetings as
hopelessly misguided.  You wouldn't even know there was _any_
percentage "unknown" unless it in fact was registered on the
spectrometer and therefore wouldn't be "unknown" any longer.
There is no way to obtain such an exact _quantitative_value_ as
0.01% or 0.1% and still have it be "unknown."  I suspect that
whoever is behind these "analyses" simply don't know what
they're talking about and are just masking ignorance with
scientific-sounding gibberish.

I haven't seen the US lab analyses and don't know whether they
are available on the Web.

Brad Sparks