Dear Friends,
Click the link to view the images.
http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2011/01/roswell-memory-metal-saga-before.html
Be Well.
David The Roswell Memory Metal Saga: Before The Roswell-Nitinol Controversy, There Was…The Roswell-Nitinol Controversy! by Nick Redfern
As regular readers of The UFO Iconoclast(s) will be acutely aware, for some time now researcher Tony Bragalia has been digging deep into the very intriguing, reported links between (A) the events outside of Roswell, New Mexico in the summer of 1947; (B) the recovery of so-called “memory-metal” from the crash-site on the Foster Ranch; and (C) the subsequent development by the United States of its very own equivalent to the curious debris.
The collective data, revelations and interviews with a whole variety of informed sources secured by Tony are made more notable by the fact that a good argument can be made that – if aliens really did crash in New Mexico on that long-gone day – it was the secret analysis and study of the anomalous debris at Roswell that allowed the US to take the lead in perfecting its very own version(s) of the recovered material.
In his August 10, 2010 post, titled Roswell, Battelle & Memory Metal Tony wrote the following:
“Some of the Roswell crash material was reported by several credible witnesses to have had the ability to ‘morph’ or change back to its original shape (shape recovery). This ‘intelligent metal’ material is today known as Shape Memory Alloy. The best example of this is a material is comprised of Titanium and Nickel and is called ‘Nitinol.’ The concept of engineered shape recovery is a thoroughly ‘post-Roswell’ concept. All major work in creating products with ‘material memory’ was performed post-Roswell. And all of this work was initially directed by the US Government. Shape Memory Alloy is distinctly ‘Roswellian’ and mimics in many respects some of the debris at Roswell.”
And Tony continues to dig deep into the issue of how the Roswell affair may have impacted upon – or directly influenced – the development of Shape Memory Alloys such as Nitinol.
It’s worth noting, however, that the Roswell-Nitinol connection is not a new one. There is another angle to the story that still links the United States’ early research into “memory-metal” and Nitinol with the crashed UFO controversy – but from a very different perspective. It is a story that I first heard in 2003 and which was published in 2005, in my book Body Snatchers in the Desert.
One of the people I interviewed for the book was an elderly man I dubbed “the Colonel,” who had a long background within US Intelligence, and particularly so with the Defense Intelligence Agency. The Colonel had a lot to say on Roswell – none of which had anything at all to do with literal crashed UFOs and aliens, but that had everything to do with the idea that the tales of wrecked flying saucers, the corpses of ETs, Mogul balloons, and weather balloons were all deliberately introduced to hide a darker secret – one focused upon high-altitude balloon-based experiments using human guinea-pigs.
Interestingly, one of the things the Colonel wanted to speak to me about was the Nitinol connection to Roswell. And, before anyone claims that I’m merely jumping on the bandwagon, I’m most assuredly not. As I mentioned, the following story was published by me in Body Snatchers 6 years ago, and was based upon a now-8-years-old interview.
According to the Colonel, in the early 1960s – possibly around Christmas of 1962, the Colonel thought, but was admittedly not entirely certain - it was suspected that a Soviet spy known to be operating in Washington, D.C., was receiving classified data (of a non-UFO nature, I should stress) from someone allied to the U.S. Army’s Foreign Technology Division (FTD). A plan was hatched to reveal bogus information to the traitor that was very specific, and that would be easily traced back to the Soviet contact when it was duly passed on - thus identifying the traitor, too.
The concocted story, stated the Colonel, was that, in 1961, the FTD had got its hands on a quantity of strange, metallic debris from a crashed UFO that was being analyzed under cover of the strictest security. This story was duly, and carefully, leaked to the suspected Soviet sympathizer and, apparently, the ruse worked: the US traitor forwarded the information on to his Russian handler and arrests were quickly and quietly made, and without any real secrets having been compromised.
But, said the Colonel, officialdom added to the ruse by exposing the traitor to a very limited amount of research into Nitinol – to try and emphasize in the traitor’s mind, and ultimately in the mind of his Soviet handler, that this was indeed extraterrestrial material of a definitively unique, “memory-metal” nature.
To expose such groundbreaking material to a source that was potentially hostile to the US, said the Colonel – even under strictly controlled and monitored circumstances - was deemed an extremely risky and fraught move. He said, however, that the dicey maneuver worked, and the traitor in the FTD came to believe the material to which he had been exposed really was extraterrestrial – rather than the result of the groundbreaking work of US scientists.
Interestingly, the Colonel added that this led to rumors in circulation within elements of officialdom that the Army’s FTD had got its hands on crashed UFO materials of a memory-metal nature.
Potentially of relevance to this issue is that in 1997 one of the most controversial UFO books of all time surfaced: The Day After Roswell, co-written by Lt. Col. Philip J. Corso and UFO Magazine’s Bill Birnes. Corso just happened to be a prime-mover within the Army’s FTD in the early 1960s. According to Corso, he had hands-on access while with the FTD to certain, recovered materials from the Roswell crash of 1947 – materials that Corso asserted until his dying day were extra-terrestrial in origin.
The Colonel, however, told me he believed that, wittingly or unwittingly, Corso’s story could be traced back to the ruse laid down to smoke out the Soviets’ informant. How this all relates to the Corso story is not fully clear; but it is an intriguing slant on the whole controversy. And it should be noted that it was during this precise time period in which Nitinol came to the fore - 1961-1962 - that Corso served with the FTD, and when the Soviet spy saga was allegedly unfolding.
How this all ties in with Tony Bragalia’s research is far from clear either. But, to me, there are several issues of importance and relevance to this whole puzzle.
With respect to the Colonel’s story, it seems to me there are only two major possibilities: the first is that he was telling the truth, and that there really was a Roswell-Nitinol connection – but it was a connection borne out of a secret operation based around deception, psychological warfare, espionage and concocted tales positing a Roswell-UFO-Nitinol link to smoke-out a communist sympathizer and his Soviet ally.
The other possibility is that the Colonel was being utterly deceptive when he spoke with me, and that he secretly suspected one day someone would finally uncover a real ET angle to the Roswell-Nitinol story – and the complex chain of events, too – that Tony is currently investigating. And, as a result, the Colonel attempted to try and deflect such Nitinol research by placing the story in a wholly down-to-earth context, rather than one involving literal aliens and a crashed UFO.
I have no idea which scenario is correct – and maybe you have other ideas. But, I will say this: the fact that a Roswell-Nitinol story was given to me 8 years ago, and was published half-a-decade ago by me, leads me to believe that there most assuredly is a Roswell-Nitinol link to be uncovered, analyzed and, finally, understood.
Whether or not that link will ultimately lead us down a path towards a crashed UFO and secret back-engineering of the unusual debris found in the desert of New Mexico nearly 64 years ago, or in the direction of a bizarre effort to smoke-out Soviet spies, remains to be seen – in my view, at least!
posted by RRRGroup at Wednesday, January 19, 2011 
About
About Me
- Name: RRRGroup
- Location: Ann Arbor/Fort Wayne, Michigan/Indiana, United States
A group of media guys
Previous
- Nick Redfern "supports" Anthony Bragalia? And poin...
- Paratopia Magazine
- ON THE TRAIL OF THE ROSWELL DEBRIS & BODIES: WHER...
- The "Official" AF Roswell Report
- Roswell: The Great Pan is dead!
- The Obama Inaugural UFO
- Frank Stalter addresses the real origins of flight...
- The Catalina UFO [1966]
- The 1963 Colorado UFO
- Darwinian Ufology
25 Comments:
What happened to the traitor? Was he turned, arrested, did he defect?
Regards,
Don
Already pointed, signaled, warned (dunno the word to use!) by several (Tim Printy and humblely myself, for example) and without offense, it is awesome to note again and again this probable confirmation bias or narrative process consisting to absolutly link Roswell and Titanium and/or titanium alloys.
I believe Radar targets envelopp were suprising in comparison to tinfoils or paper for anyone facing it for the first time, and that's right they have a relative memory form property, like "Kevlar" ie (?). That's normal for an apparatus which must resist to hight altitude winds and they were concepted for that. There exist documentations where the Army asked to have better resistance of the ML307 model after the ML307A, which was not enough resisting, too.
The processings to obtain pure titanium (1939), properties, experiments on titanium alloys started before Roswell 1947. Battelle documents "exhumed" by Tony are totaly part of this standard research processing step by step imho. I dont see any "smocking gun" or sudain technological boom, as Battelle experimented different alloys whose formulas and properties are far from Nitinol too.
The mythic Roswell reverse engineering is rather unsuccessful! You know...).
We must wait the 60's to have really memory alloys and you know the properties are temperatures dependant.
Soviets themselves think to use titanium when they concepted Alpha class submarines since 1957, showing that in other countries, such step by step applicated researches existed.
And many more points already raised by "Skeptics" or "pragmatic".
In essence, the link(s) between Roswell and "memory alloys" or "titanium" sounds absolutly artificial and part of the Roswell myth narrative elaboration processings (in an anthrrpological point of view) intentionaly or not in my humble opinion.
Without offense.
Best Regards,
Gilles Fernandez
He is anonymous, and will remain so, I assume. The traitor in the FTD is also anonymous.
Why attach any importance to anything he told you? You do not accept the 'Roswell was ET' story. Are you now saying that because this colonel's tale fits in partially with Tony Bragalia's Nitinol ideas (and 'confirms' part of Corso's tales) it is worth considering as a disinformation plot?
It seems to me, Nick, that you are just adding more complexities to the Roswell myth. Haven't we got enough already?
Just a follow up to my previous posting:
I have reread your two penultimate paragraphs, the one starting "With respect to the colonel's story..." and the following one.
Are there really only two possibilities here? I suggest that there is a third one. But you don't need me to tell you what it is, do you?
Regards.
Admittedly, neither I nor the interviewee have the answers to the full story, and by his - the Colonel's - own admission, it was what he was told, rather than being directly involved.
Yes, I am indeed saying that this somehow ties in with Tony B's info, and yes I am indeed saying that at least a part of the Roswell-Nitinol story may be tied in with a disinfo plot.
Now (as I speculated in the post) the nature of the plot could be that he deceived me, or (as he told me) that the Roswell-Nitinol connection had nothing to do with ETs and more to do with a strange operation to snag a Soviet spy and his US accomplice.
That 8 years ago I was given (and 6 years ago published) a story that linked Roswell and Nitinol - and now, today, Roswell and Nitinol are being deeply discussed at this blog via Tony B's work - is something I find very intriguing.
Some might say that the Colonel's near-decade-old story linking Roswell and Nitinol somewhat anticipated today's Roswell-Nitinol research is entirely coincidental. Me? I'm not so sure - which is precisely why I wrote the post, to bring it to people's attention, and to see if we can take things further.
Re your question as to the reason why I attach importance to the things he told me, again, it's in part that (in my view) he seemed to anticipate that one day Roswell and Nitinol would - years later - become an issue and chose to discuss it from his perspective.
And when things like that happen, I believe it's an area worthy of research and comment.
In your second comment-post, you asked: "Are there really only two possibilities here?"
No of course there aren't only two, which is precisely why I wrote the following on this very matter:
QUOTE: "I have no idea which scenario is correct – and maybe you have other ideas."
So, yes, my words make it clear that I'm allowing for other scenarios and ideas.
It may be or it may not be. Tony Bragalia can tell us if he had read Corso's book before embarking on his own research. I have not read Corso's book. I am curious to know if your colonel informant had. Also, if he was only relating a story that HE had heard, then you realise this sets it all back one further step, i.e. it becomes a third-hand story instead of a second-hand one. (Or is it fourth instead of third?).
Perhaps Tony can clear up one thing. Did you, Tony, read Corso before beginning your research? And is titanium or nitinol mentioned therein? I ask because I am ignorant of Corso.
1) In Body Snatchers, he says that Nitinol was used in a "fake story" that was developed to "smoke out" Soviet agents in the early 1960s. Military/Intelligence placed the story out there of a crashed UFO from a dozen years prior with strange "memory metal" debris having been found with technological advantages.
2) In supporting Mac Tonnies' Cryptoterrestrial thesis, Nick cited a former Intelligence agent with an entirely different story. He told him that the material was actually from a bizarre balloon-like vehicle composed of unknown materials to science, designed and crashed by Cryptoterrestrials!
3) Now, another of his sources tell him that the real story was that the metal resulted from demonic manifestation. In Final Events, he says that the metal was a "manifestation" brought upon by a Parsons/Crowley-like Babylon Working somehow using para-physical technologies. This then opened a portal, and the strange material from hell surfaced!
And then in another comment on this blog about Anthony Bragalia’s Roswell interview with Billy Cox, Nick says that perhaps the information that was have uncovered by Mr. Bragalia was "deliberate disinformation" put out in the public domain so that if one day someone came up with any Battelle-WPAFB-Roswell idea, it would further cover the real truth about the metal, (presumably) the truth being one of the three scenarios that Mr. Redfern speculates about above).
Now, I do not know what scenario that Nick really subscribes to, if any.
It’s very hard to tell. But all three are absolutely off-the-wall with no real basis in fact as I see it.
Colby
Yes, it does indeed mean this is a second- or third-hand story. But it's a myth that this mean a story is necessarily problematic.
If we stick with Roswell, interesr really kicked off big-time in the late 70s with the research of Friedman and Moore (and to a lesser extent, Stringfield).
Let's take the Marcel story, as it surfaced in the late 70s. Moore got the data from Friedman. Friedman was told of the story by a media source in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in January 1978.
So, the telling of the story goes from Marcel, to the stattion manager at the TV station in Baton Rouge, to Friedman, to Moore - who then shares it with Berlitz, and it's finally published.
Now, regardless of how we interpret the nature of what it was that Marcel recovered from the Foster Ranch, the fact is that for the Marcel story to be printed, it went through a complex chain of people.
So, in my view and experience, getting a story second- or third-hand is certainly not preferable. But what it means is we have to work harder to get to the original source.
In the case of Marcel this wasn't too har because Friedman had his name.
I don't have the name of the Colonel's source, but that hasn't stopped me trying to find it - and there are a couple of families who I have approached and a surviving wife of a third that appear to know something of the Colonel's story.
You have correctly noted in my books, articles, interviews etc I have shared data that I (or others) have uncovered that provides wildly different views on Roswell.
My view is that I think if we ever get the truth (to where we can prove it) Roswell will be shown to be some sort of dark and dubious military experiment, Body-Snatchers style.
But, I freely admit that with a case that has multiple theories (UFO, weather balloon, Mogul array, human-experimentation, crash test dummies, atomic mishap, V2 rocket, cryptoterrestrial, etc etc), the responsible thing to do is share/publicize all of the data and see where it leads.
Despite what some might tell you, no-one in the UFO research arena really knows what happened at Roswell. Rather, they have formed opinions based on the available evidence.
That's exactly what I have done, and I may be right. Or, I may be dead wrong. I'm willing to admit this. But sadly the will to believe (or the will to want to believe) that aliens crashed at Roswell is so great that many Roswell researchers refuse to accept the case involved anything other than aliens.
You refer to my Final Events book that suggests the debris was the work of some sort of "demonic alchemy." There's no doubt that there are indeed people in the official world who believe that, which is why I highlighted their views in Final Events.
However, I was very careful to note very early on in Final Events the following with respect to the beliefs about demonic UFOs:
Here's the quote from Final Events:
"...it is important to note that the accounts, beliefs, theories and conclusions that I uncovered are strictly those of the people who have been willing to have them publicized. As the author of this book, I am only the messenger for those who adhere to the message. In view of this, it is perhaps wise and apposite for me to cite the words of Sir Walter Scott: “I cannot tell how the truth may be; I say the tale as ‘twas said to me.”
So, as the above words show, I'm hardly supportive of the demonic angle for Roswell. Rather, I'm relating tht story of those that DO believe it. And in doing so, I hope it may shed further light on Roswell.
In other words, I feel that when we are dealing with a case that has so many facets and theories to it and that remains presently unresolved, that discussing all the theories is essential.
But do I buy all the theories? No, of course not. But what if we ignore them all aside from the UFO angle, and by doing so we are actually ignoring the one angle that solves it.
The problem is that so many people in Ufology illogically expect people to have 1 view on such events - kind of "us vs. them," "skeptcis vs. believers."
Well, I'm honest enough to admit that's too simplistic an approach. Something odd happened at Roswell, we don't know what, so let's put all the data out there and see what sticks and what falls to the wayside.
One other thing, you say: "Nick Redfern seems a bit contradictory to me."
No, I'm not. Sharing with readers of my blogs or books data from insiders that is contradictory (UFO, demonic, cryptoterrestrial, etc) does not make me contradictory.
It simply means that Roswell is afoot with numerous theories. And its the theories and data that are contradictory.
How, if I highlight data from sources that is contradictory, does that specifically make me contradictory? Particularly when, as noted in my Comment above, I freely stated in my Final Events book that the theories and beliefs were those of the interviewees, NOT of me?!
No one really knows what happened near Roswell in July 1947.
Something significant? Or something mundane, rather prosaic that turned into a major UFO event because of the machinations of some UFO researchers?
One baffling facet of the Roswell episode that is bothersome to me is the unenthusiastic aftermath (August/September 1947) by those who said they saw the debris, the bodies, and even the saucer itself.
Sure, the public and news media went away after the Ramey squelch, but why would the locals, who allegedly experienced such a monumental event, go so quiet, and passive?
Either the Roswell citizenry was egregiously enervated or something less than what we now think is the Roswell event took place and the incident just faded away as non-events are prone to do.
RR
You say, in last paragraph of your first response to Colby:
"Something odd happened at Roswell, we don't know what".
The only reason "something odd" happened is that certain people, over 30 years later, made it odd, and wanted to keep it odd. Others then followed and continued the game.
To science at large nothing untoward happened. To ufologists several sorts of different things happened, depending who you believe and what you believe.
You can go on introducing more ideas and making more complexities out of it if you wish. That is why we get all these discussions. I just cannot understand why introducing more and more way out theories, and endless reports from 3rd or 4th-hand people is EVER going to get us anywhere. And if such people are anonymous, the likelihood is zero.
We desperately need real hardware, bodies or official documentation - lots of the latter.
But we aint going to get these, are we? Even nitinol won't solve this.
Since his story is that the spy and his Soviet handler were arrested, a law student with a LexisNexis ID ought to be able to pull up the story and the court case in less than 30 minutes, if there is a story and a case.
Regards,
Don
I think it would be useful if Roswell could be discussed without "science" or "ufology" intruding.
Regards,
Don
A journalistic discussion -- real journalism -- would be one way to approach the topic anew.
RR
We may indeed not get the hardware, bodies, documents etc. But, again, my view is that we have to put out all the data, in the hope that some of sticks and we can then follow that trail and maybe get something - or indeed maybe we won't.
But I believe we have to keep looking, and when we uncover new data (regardless of which angle of Roswell it supports) we should higlight it for all to see.
Of course I was well aware of the Corso book when it first came out. When I read it, I immediately recognized it for the fraud that it was. See my article "The Roswell Liars" to learn more.
And no, curiously Corso never mentioned the "memory metal" or shape recovery materials. Of course he would not have, as he had no special knowledge of any such things...
Nick-
As Nick knows, he and I differ on the 'cause' of Roswell. We can agree to disagree and continue the dialog...this is a good thing.
But I do wish that Nick would assign a probability to the various theories that Colby points out that Nick has mentioned about Roswell over the years. It is important to report, but how about some analysis? Some concept of how likely each of these theories are to Nick...Based on having actually talked to many of the sources that promote each theory, you must have an 'inner sense' or 'gut feel' of who is telling you the truth?
As readers know, I value witness testimony- but it must be hugely qualified. We must aggressively vet out those who lie. To not do so only perpetuates delusion and falsehoods.
AJB
Anthony Bragalia
Well, let's hope someone may do this. I have said it before that solving some of the more puzzling cases may come via means and methods that most of us don't usually think of.
And I would certainly apply that to aspects of the Roswell story. Trying to get the truth by FOIA'ing the USAF to release its "Roswell Files" (if such exist) probably won't work. But, maybe looking for data on a psy-op that involved a Soviet spy-ring may work.
After all, can there have been many such spy-rings specifically linked to the Army's FTD at some point in the 1960/62 era? Probably not.
Maybe even FOIA'ing (or checking available FTD files at the National Archives from that period may reveal something.
I'm personally convinced that this is probably the only way we stand a chance of solving Roswell - finding something on the case that exists in the files of a tangential project - that the censors may miss the signifance of.
Although we can disagree if there is a extraterrestrial component to this, to my mind, it's beside the point. Whether Angleton and Dulles were the puppet masters is to be determined. Kudos to the three of you of bringing common sense back to the table.
While my interests are elsewhere they do not mean that I am diametrically opposed to the earthbound as a result.
Great post.
You make a very valid point about addressing the truthfulness (or not) of sources, and the validity of the data.
One of the biggest problems that many fail to appreciate, is that it's not impossible some of the insiders revealing these stories have themselves been deliberatey deceived, and then encouraged to unknowingly - or unwittingly - spread such deceit.
After all, there's no better spreader of disinformation than someone who fully, and earnestly, believes the story they are telling.
The people I spoke to for Body Snatchers came across as very genuine - and I think when you interview a lot of people, as I have done, you do become a good judge of character.
I don't think they were deceiving me (but I could of course be wrong). But could they themselves have been deceived? Certainly.
That's why the issue of how accurate the testimony of insiders is, is such a controversial issue.
When those telling the stories may themselves have been deceived, we start getting into really complex areas that take a hell of a lot of unravelling.
The people I interviewed fo Final Events about the "demonic" angle of Roswell, clearly believed what they were saying. But, by their own admission, they had not seen the debris. Even they were not supposedly cleared to access it. So, they incorporated their ideas about Roswell into their already-existing Fundamentalist Christian belief systems.
So, they weren't lying, in my opinion. Rather, they were offering a view based upon their belief. That doesn't mean they were speaking the truth about the Roswell debris, however.
It's things like this that make it tremendously difficult to know (A) who is speaking the truth; and (B) whether "their truth" is actually "THE truth"!
We can establish a reality-baseline by studying such situations between, say, 1957-1967.
It is the same with Roswell 1947. How did civilians, the army, sheriffs and police, the news media act when they were brought together by events, say, from 1937-1949. And also how they interacted in the flying disc story related recoveries of weather balloons and their kites immediately before, during, and immediately after Roswell.
That information becomes the reality-baseline. It is an approximation of what was 'normal' then and there.
Unlike "science" which we are told finds nothing "untoward" about Roswell, it appears to me that near everything about it is abnormal from Brazel to Ramey.
Regarding the Colonel's story, I wonder why they wanted to prove their suspect was a spy. Would 'proof' be that which a judge would admit as evidence, or simply proof of their suspicions? Since the pair was arrested, I'd guess trial evidence was likely.
I don't know how they expected to get feedback from the KGB. If they had such a channel, then the nitinol would have been more than sufficient with no need for an ET cover. In fact, rather than snag a project that was just at that time (1962) making the discoveries about NiTi, almost anything the KGB would recognize as highly classified would do...maybe not even that important. It depends on the feedback conduit.
I think a fair amount of counter intelligence work attempts to burn the opponents time, money, and energy with tangents, digressions, and misdirection. If a spy is discovered, arresting him might not be at the top of CI's todo list.
Regards,
Don
it's wonders as a miracle metal. but...almost all titanium comes from
the ussr as it was called in those days. i also remember reading about memory metal in old edmund scientific catalogs of the late 1960's. anyone could purchase it for fun time experiments!
i have hours of L3 (low light level) video of the night sky in conjunction with a fireball and bolide study i am doing. i sure wish i could meet folks who would be willing to review the data for any, shall we say, unidentified flying objects. i have lots of moon videos also that should be reviewed for "interesting" phenomena.
Have you asked yourselves a basic question: How is it that so many elderly in the 1980s spoke of such a thing as "memory metal" from the 1940s in the first place? What a strange thing that so many would speak so early of such a thing to begin with! Even in the 1980s, the researchers who spoke to these memory metal witnesses had never heard of Nitinol...The very fact that such a bizarre thing as shape-recovery metal was ever brought up by Roswell witnesses astounds!
AJB
<< Home