Subject: IUFO: Challenging Misinformation- UFO Search for the truth

                            Searching for the Truth

       (Always Telling the Truth Means Never Having to Remember Anything)


Challenging Misinformation


Doing Ufology research is not much different from some of the civil
engineering research I did for many years, because as in all research, it
is of the utmost importance that information is validated and verified
before going public with it. Ufology research, especially concerning
topics such as the 1947 Roswell Incident, are difficult to research and
investigate for many reasons. Some witnesses who were involved are not
willing to share information, while others embellish or elaborate on
their involvement for some reason; the government and military catch-all
excuse of ^”national security^‘ and the out right lying they do; and
finally, the physical evidence which has not shown up yet (although I^“m
convinced it^“s out there somewhere). So I pay close attention to any
information about the Roswell Incident presented whenever I have the
opportunity. With several hundred, perhaps thousands of web sites on the
internet about the Roswell Incident, it^“s a given that most of those
sites are comprised of second or third-hand research^◊ knowing the
^”researcher^‘ has never actually done any research on their own. I
suppose that^“s all right if the information presented is factual or
accurate, but in many cases it^“s not.

Unfortunately, many times the general public accepts whatever they are
told by whoever tells it. This was the situation with the Roswell
Incident for 30 years until the Incident was finally investigated
starting in the late 1970s. Fortunately, there is a delete button on
computers to get rid of such information, or as in my case, as I^“ve done
twice before on my website, I have responded publicly in editorials I^“ve
written: once to a challenge I received from Phil Klass where I had to
defend my credibility, and again with James Bond Johnson, when he
elaborated on his involvement based on 3 separate interviews he had done.

I assume the politically correct method of challenging misinformation
would be privately, however, due to the amount of time that is required
to ^”clear the record^‘ and try to put a stop to it, I have decided to do
it in the open. The public deserves accurate information, and serious
researchers should be devoting their time to research ^÷ not correcting
errors and misinformation put out by individuals that have not done the
research. This editorial is not a personal attack on these individuals,
but rather an attempt on my part to challenge the unverified information
being put out. It^“s difficult enough to find the truth dealing with the
military, government and witnesses, without having to cope with wrong
information or misinformation distributed by individuals, so my approach
has become one of doing it publicly as I hope to bring attention to it
and put an end to at least some of it.

A good example of this is when critics, debunkers and skeptics mistakenly
agree to debate Stanton Friedman on the Roswell Incident. Typically they
don^“t do the required research to be on the same platform with Mr.
Friedman, and in a short period of time Mr. Friedman will have presented
documentation and factual information that they can^“t dispute. As soon
as the debate is over, however, they^“ll be back to spreading their
misinformation to anyone that will listen. It appears to me that
sensationalism sells, and this gives these individuals, despite their
lack of research, lecture opportunities or the media exposure that they
do not deserve.

On many occasions TV documentaries present information that is not
factual. They do this, primarily I believe, because the media have not
done the required research in the first place, or the information being
presented has been altered to fit someone^“s specific agenda. Ufological
research especially requires credibility: validated testimonies and
documentation that can be verified. UFO research is too important from a
historical viewpoint, and to important to our future to allow certain
individuals to continue to distribute ^”bogus^‘ information as though it
were factual.

Such was the case, when recently, I was asked to be Master of Ceremonies
at a UFO symposium where I had the pleasure of introducing 6 guest
speakers on a variety of topics from the Aztec crash to crop circles to
Native American information. I am not one to buy into everything
presented, and really have a difficult time believing everything I^“m
told ^÷ especially when it^“s presented as the only possibility based on
that individuals belief.

Nancy Red Star was one of the invited speakers, and being interested in
what information she would present about Native Americans star knowledge
and UFO involvement, I paid extra attention to her presentation. She
showed an hour-long video in which she interviewed several Native
Americans and for the most part it was of historical value getting some
of their experiences on tape.

During part of the video, Nancy was interviewing an elder who said he had
been involved in the Roswell Incident in 1947. As she interviewed this
gentleman, he spoke of guarding two live aliens recovered from the
Roswell crash in 1947, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a year at Area
51. He even said meals were delivered to him so he'd never have to leave
his guard position during that time. He described the beings similarly to
how others have described them as looking, and he mentioned communicating
with them through telepathy.

Two of the areas that I have dedicated my research to for the past 15 or
20 years are Roswell and Area 51, so the gentleman being interviewed by
Nancy was talking about topics that I felt I was very familiar with.
After she completed her presentation and the floor was opened to
questions, I challenged her about the statements the elder had just made
on the video. I explained how long I had been researching these two
topics, and informed her that this person could not have been guarding 2
live aliens at Area 51 in 1947, and that I believed this was information
that should not be included in her video. I explained that Area 51 was
not placed into service until 1955 when the CIA was looking for a secret
location to test the U-2 spy plane. The U-2 had been developed by Kelly
Johnson and when he presented it to the CIA, they felt a more secretive
location than Edwards Air Force Base was needed to test it. Consequently,
12 sites were reviewed in the southwestern United States, and the
location at Groom Lake, Nevada was chosen. A runway was built, several
buildings erected under the fake construction name of ^”CLJ^‘, and by
1955 the CIA had its secret base. This of course means that the gentleman
being interviewed could not have been at Area 51, 8 years earlier since
it didn^“t even exist in 1947.

Nancy took exception to my challenge, emphatically stating that I should
talk to the gentleman she interviewed^◊ not to her. She missed the whole
point, in my opinion, because if she^“d done her research she would have
known he was not telling the truth and she could have challenged his
statements herself or removed his testimony from the presentation. I
explained to her that since she was doing the interview on tape and had
produced the film, she was responsible for its contents. Those one
hundred people in the audience at the symposium, some of whom may have
not researched Roswell or Area 51, would not have known the facts if I
had not questioned her publicly.

After her presentation several people approached me and thanked me for
bringing up the discrepancy in her presentation, however, Nancy voiced
her concern to me that I'd challenged her, and she let me know she
didn^“t appreciate it. My response was that I didn^“t appreciate her
putting out misinformation, or in this case, unverified information which
turned out to be false. I have the documents to support when Area 51 came
into existence; she had nothing other than the gentleman^“s remarks,
which she never verified. I told Nancy to do her homework before
presenting information that is unverified. She refused to be part of a
panel discussion later that day with all of the speakers and myself.

Some of us researchers are watching and listening to what is being
presented, and in my case I will no longer keep it to myself. The truth
is too important.

Email:  Dennis G. Balthaser

Call Dennis Direct - 505-625-8402
For lecture, touring information and booking
Anomalies Found in Roswell Metal
(c) David E. Twichell
Posted: 7/26/2004

In 1996, Linda Moulton Howe, UFO investigator and author, submitted a
piece of metal to biophysicist W. C. Levengood, of Grass Lake, Michigan,
for analysis. The metallic fragment is alleged to have come from the
debris field of the famous Roswell, New Mexico UFO crash of 1947. 
(*). "From Electron Microscope and EDS (Electron Dispersive
Spectroscopy) studies it was shown that the metal was composed of
contiguous layers of pure bismuth (Bi) and layers of magnesium (Mg)
containing between 2-3 percent zinc (Zn). The Electron Microscope images
disclosed that Bi layers are in the range of 1-4 microns thick and the
Mg layers 100-200 microns in thickness. When examined in cross section,
it was apparent that the layers were not smooth and straight but rather
contained micro-undulations. 

"One of the visits during Linda's Odyssey was at the Carnegie Institute,
Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, where she arranged for an Ion
Microprobe ^÷ Isotope analysis of the Bi/Mg sample. In the final report
by Dr. Erik Hauri, there are two findings, which stand out as being
highly anomalous. 
1. The Bi/Mg sample gave a rate of emission of Mg (+) ions, which was
over 60 times the rate from the pure Mg metal standard. 
2. In the Bi layer the isotope ratio of mass, 208/206, was 2.72. It was
pointed out that this ratio is consistent with the known isotope
composition of lead (Pb). 
"The presence of lead in the Bi layer was suggested as being due to some
type of contamination. This, however, can be eliminated as cause of this
unusual isotopic ratio in Bi, the reason being, no Pb was detected in
the EDS studies. This ion probe work indicates unusual molecular
structures in both the Bi and Mg layers. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the make-up of this material is far from the 'standard'

Further studies at Levengood's Pinelandia Biophysical Laboratory in
Grasslake, MI, uncovered other anomalies connected with the strange
metal. Levengood noted a chemical reaction in the sample when subjecting
it to a "Charge Density Pulse" test (CDP). The method employed was via a
patented device developed by himself and Dr. John L. Gedye for the
purpose of detecting very subtle, self-organized groups of "charge
density pulses" which are within all living systems. 
(*) "Further evidence of a possible chemical reaction became apparent
when a very active bubble formation was noted within about three minutes
after introducing a 90 mg. Bi/Mg sample into the water. If indeed a
chemical reaction is taking place we have another very anomalous
situation. The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics lists Bi, Mg and Zn as
being insoluble (non-reactive) in water. 

"Repeated trials of placing the Bi/Mg samples in water consistently
disclosed the presence of bubble emission within a very short time after
submerging in water. It was surprising to find that bubble emission
continued for days. Since the bubbles are an indication that a chemical
reaction is taking place, it would be expected that reaction products
would be present in the base water. If Mg is being oxidized, a milky
precipitate of MgO particles should be formed (a very common industrial
compound). Instead, the water in which the reaction took place remained
as clear and free of particles as in the initial state." 

Levengood tested the metal fragment for the presence of hydrogen by
putting a sample in a flask with a weak solution of acetic acid.
Immediately the fragment began to bubble as in water. The top of the
flask was covered with a double layer of saran wrap. After twenty
minutes, the covering was removed and a flame was introduced to the
mouth of the flask. The result was a very loud, active explosion inside
the flask and at the opening, indicating the presence of a high
concentrate of hydrogen. This result was repeated in subsequent tests
and filmed by his associate, Ms. Marilyn Ruben. 
(*) "If a sample of the Bi/Mg metal is left in the weak acetic acid
until the bubbling stops (usually within a couple of hours) it would be
expected that reaction products would be found in the acid solution. It
was astounding to find that the liquid was still as clear as when first
placed in the flask and the only other visible material was very thin,
black, spongy flakes from the Bi inter-layers. This experimental
sequence was repeated a number of times and in every case the results
were the same. The fact that very fine Bi particles remained in the
solution clearly indicates that this element acted as a catalyst in the
reaction process. 

"By comparing the mass of the Bi flakes left in the solution with the
total mass of the Bi/Mg particle, it was determined from a number of
repeat experiments that between 94% and 96% of the total mass of the
original sample was still unaccounted for." 
The question, as to the origin of this strange metallic fragment,
remains. Many fragments, allegedly found at the Roswell crash site in
1947, have reportedly slipped through the cracks of the Army/Air force's
tight security grid. Could this particular fragment be one of them? 
W.C. Levengood observed in his thesis on the metal; "the high, active
output of the hydrogen gas in these reactions, bring to mind obvious
applications for use as hydrogen fuel cells. A rapid and complete
reaction takes place without leaving behind reaction products which can
interfere with the reaction and poison the system." 
Could the fragment in question be from an advanced hydrogen propulsion
system? Was it indeed recovered from the debris field of a downed exotic
craft from elsewhere in the cosmos? In seeking the answers, even more
questions have been posed. 

One fact that, to date, is not in question is that the unusual
properties of this alloy remains a mystery to Levengood, as well as many
other top-notch scientists who have examined it. An alloy comprised of
different elements is not found in nature. It is forged by intelligent
beings. After many years of testing, science is unable to determine the
basis for this particular alloy's composition . . . let alone duplicate
David E. Twichell. 

(*) Excerpt from "Anomalous Energy Transformations in a Bi/Mg Layered
Metal." A copyrighted scientific publication by W.C. Levengood. 

1. W.C. Levengood & John L. Gedye, Evidence for Charge Density Pulses
Associated With Bioelectric Fields in Living Organisms, Subtle Energies
& Energy Medicine, Vol. 8, pp 33-54 (1998). 
2. W.C. Levengood & John L. Gedye, Method and Apparatus for Detecting,
Recording and Analyzing Spontaneously Generated Transient Electric
Charge Pulses in Living Organisms, U.S. Patent No. 6,347,238, Feb. 12,
3. W.C. Levengood & John L. Gedye, Mechanisms Related to Charge Density
Pulse Formation in Living Systems, (in Press) 2003). 
4. Linda Moulton Howe. Glimpses of Other Realities, Vol. II, pp 11 ^÷
5. Marilyn Ruben.

------- End of forwarded message -------