Personally, I’m ambivalent about the request.

On the one hand, it’s worth proposing. As I have said many times, if the government actually knows of an intelligent ET presence, and if there is evidence to that effect, the public should at least know that much. The government can reserve information relevant to national security, but the public should at least know that much, and can handle it.

On the flip side, the present administration would only reveal any actual information if if served its larger left-wing anti-colonialist, throw-our-economy-into-the-crapper agenda. The Obama administration has shown that it is anything but transparent. Like other administrations before it, it is deeply, disturbingly corrupt.¹

But it’s a nice thought.

[Gary Bates}: Point 3: Since extraterrestrials would have no hope for salvation, this would mean that any ETs would be lost for eternity when this present creation is destroyed in a fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10, 12).

MSH: Gary's argument assumes a very literal interpretation, which may or may not be the intent here. I'll assume it is for sake of discussion. Is the language here speaking of our solar system? Our galazy? The entire universe? Doubtful in triplicate. Some reasons include the vocabulary and logic. Since "heavenly bodies" here = "the elements" (stoicheia), a term that elsewhere refers to (hostile) divine entities. The point may therefore be the destruction of demonic forces. A "natural" take here would require that Peter knows what elements are, and there is of course no biblical evidence that the disciples or anyone else in the first century knew what elements really were. However, one *could* press this language to refer to a literal apocalypse of the things ancient people presumed made up all that is (earth, wind, fire, water). But then it would likely refer only to the earth and its atmosphere, not the entire cosmos.  In which case Gary's point would be wanting.  In short, this isn't a very good argument against ET being destroyed. It;s also not a good argument against ET existing, but I don't think that's really Gary's point.

Because of this, some have wondered whether Christ’s sacrifice might be repeated elsewhere for other beings. However, Christ died once for all (Romans 6:10, 1 Peter 3:18) on the earth. He is not going to be crucified and resurrected again on other planets (Hebrews 9:26). This is confirmed by the fact that the redeemed (earthly) church is known as Christ’s bride (Ephesians 5:22–33; Revelation 19:7–9) in a marriage that will last for eternity. Christ is not going to be a polygamist with many other brides from other planets. The Bible makes no provision for God to redeem any other species, any more than to redeem fallen angels (Hebrews 2:16).

MSH: agreed.

For once, I [John Milor] actually agree with Mr. Bates, concerning Christ’s sacrifice not being repeated elsewhere. But where I disagree, is with Mr. Bates’ reasoning behind Jesus’ sacrifice not being repeated elsewhere, and also his conclusion that Jesus would be a polygamist if He saved other species in the cosmos.

MSH: agreed; that would be silly.

First of all, the scriptures that Mr. Bates quotes as saying that the redeemed church is “earthly,” (Ephesians 5:22-23; Revelation 19:7-9), do not say anything at all about the church being “earthly.” The Bride of Christ is simply all those who believe in Jesus, and no restriction is mentioned in scripture about where they come from, or what species they are.

MSH: This goes beyond silly; it’s wacky if I must say so. It requires readers to believe that, in biblical theology, the church, the Body of Christ, was *not* exclusively human-focused. Not only is that an argument from silence (where are the verses that mention the non-humans included in the church?), it runs contrary to a number of passages and theological considerations.

1. Ephesians 1:7 and Ephesians 5:2 make it clear that humanity is the object of redemption (“us”; “our transgression” – not “them” or “ETs transgressions”).

2. The point of the incarnation was identification with humanity; as is the whole point of the kinsman redeemer theology of the Bible is identification with humanity (the incarnation was what made Yahweh a kinsman-redeemer for humanity; he became a human, not an ET).

3. Paul links humanity (“your bodies”) to the body of Christ in 1 Cor 6:15.

4. In 1 Cor 12:27 Paul tells the (human) Corinthians that they were the body of Christ and individually members of it. He goes on to add that God appointed for that body apostles, prophets, teachers, etc.  I wonder why he didn’t say God also appointed those things to ETs? because it wasn’t even in his mind. These “appointees” were supposed to “equip the saints for the work of the ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12). If the body of Christ included ETs, I wonder which ancient apostles, prophet, teacher, etc. went to the ETs and how he got there (when the earthy apostles had to do their work by walking and ship voyages).

I think I’ll stop here. This is just plain wacky.

After Mr. Bates’ three main points, none of which disprove the existence of extraterrestrials, he then attempts to refute a well known scripture that some UFOlogists have used to support the possibility of extraterrestrial life, which is John 10:16. Jesus is quoted as saying ‘I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.’ To this, Mr. Bates states the following:

However, even an ET-believing astronomer at the Vatican (thus a ‘hostile witness’ to the ‘no ETs cause’), a Jesuit priest by the name of Guy Consalmagno, concedes, ‘In context, these “other sheep” are presumably a reference to the Gentiles, not extraterrestrials.’ Jesus’ teaching was causing division among the Jews (vs. 19) because they always believed that salvation from God was for them alone. Jesus was reaffirming that He would be the Savior of all mankind.

Just because a Jesuit priest at the Vatican has an opinion about what this particular scripture means within its context, doesn’t mean his opinion is infallible. I believe that scripture is infallible, but I trust no one person’s interpretation of scripture, including my own, as being infallible. I do agree that Jesus was talking about Gentiles, but He may have also been talking about extraterrestrials as well.

Technorati Tags: aliens, Bates, Bible, demons, Milor

In the “insightful but it’s obvious” category are his criticisms of mainstream Christianity, specifically the health and wealth consumeristic nonsense you see on TV:

Much of what passes off as religion in current Western civilization is not designed to provide any fulfilment.

These religions are not antidotes or islands of respite from materialist life outside the church or the temple. They are in fact merely there to egg on western consumer society and further push the interests of empty materialism. Plastic religions for plastic societies.

Since this disdainful slice of Christianty seems to be the level of Mr. Cohen’s exposure, what he says is understandable (and I think accurate, since I don’t consider this hucksterism to be authentic Christianity in any way, and a large percentage of Christians would be with me there).  But therein is the problem as well — under-exposure makes some of his other comments little more than sweeping generalizations. Cohen dopily equates the Protestant work ethic with the Prosperity Gospel nonsense.  Sorry, but I can’t see Martin Luther or John Calvin as televangelists.  We are also treated to such profundities as this:

Spiritually satisfied people are not economically productive: Angry, disappointed ones are. Making people disillusioned is the very purpose of these faiths and those genuinely seeking answers or meaning in life beyond the newest flat screen television might be advised to shop elsewhere.

It’s hard to describe how far from reality this description is in terms of the vast majority of Christian endeavor. Has Mr. Cohen ever heard of charitable work?  Missions? Hospitals?  Christians are behind a large percentage of these things. Economically unproductive Christians? Uh, how could you be following a WORK ethic and be unproductive?

But maybe Mr. Cohen didn’t know where to look as he busied himself doing research for his article. Here’s a short list of well known Christian business people that took about thirty seconds to find:

Truett Cathy – founder Chick-Fil-A
Cecil Day – founder Day’s Inn
Arthur DeMoss – businessman and author, founder, DeMoss Foundation
H.G. Heinz – founder, Heinz ketchup
Norm Miller- Chairman of the Board, Interstate Batteries James Cash Penney (1875-1971) – founder, J.C. Penney department stores
Dave Thomas – founder, Wendy’s

Sam Walton – founder, Wal-Mart

But we all know it isn’t the large businesses that make the economy go. It’s small businesses. Maybe there are some Christians there, too.  If I were doing any research for an article where I’d be making statements about non-productive Christians, I might spend another thirty seconds on Google and find sites like Christian Businessmen Connection, or the International Fellowship fo Christian Businessmen. Heck, I might even check the Internet for whether there’s a “Best Places to Work” site that focuses on Christian businesses.

Putting all that exhaustive research and analysis aside, anyone who reads UFO material with an eye to its belief systems knows that there is nothing *new* to the “spirituality” being put forth by the UFO sub-culture of today.  It’s simply an amalgamation of ancient paganism (and I’m not using that term pejoratively; I’m using it academically) and “eastern” spirituality modified for a technological culture. It’s easy to find essays on this (cf. Christopher Partridge’s book, UFO Religions, or his other volume, The Re-enchantment Of The West: Alternative Spiritualities, Sacralization, Popular Culture, and Occulture, which includes more discussion of UFO spirituality).

I also have to wonder what’s spiritually fulfilling about a belief system centered on conjecture and anecdote. Until we actually have hard *science* for intelligent ETs, that’s what you’ve got, Mr. Cohen.

Nothing new here, but you might be interested anyway.

I’ve read a few different blog posts on the announcement, and it came as no surprise that at least two leaps of logic were made (read: two examples of bad logic).

First, bloggers breathlessly relate how the Russian records have eyewitnesses saying the craft traveled at “incredible speeds”. Yeah — let’s have the numbers. So far I’ve read the records say anywhere from 400 mph to 1000 mph. So what?  Again, those of you who haven’t done so need to read Joseph Farrell’s research here. Those numbers are NOT outside the patented physics he supports with documentation that the Nazis had (and we and … lo and behold … the RUSSIANS had after WWII as a result of the scramble to get Nazi scientists over here or behind the iron curtain).  Nothing new or non-human at all. But here’s the biggest logic blunder.  Let’s ask ourselves a simple question: how many mph are needed to interplanetary / interstellar space travel?  Hmmmm.  Well, the Space Shuttle’s orbital speed is 17,500 mph, FAR in excess of UFO reports (here or from the Russians).  That would mean that these “incredible speeds” are NOT capable of interplanetary or interstellar space travel. In case you don’t get the point, our Space Shuttle isn’t slated to be our solution for a journey to Mars, for example.  And since the aliens are supposed to come from places like Zeta Reticuli, the speed of these eye-witnessed craft ain’t even close.  ”But Mike,” you might object, “maybe the eyewitnesses saw only a low speed; maybe they can go much faster.” True–maybe they can. Maybe chocolate pudding is like kryptonite to them, too. If THAT “maybe” is your defense of the extraterrestrial hypothesis here, then your argument isn’t based on what has been observed, it’s based on what HASN’T been observed (which is another way of saying “nothing” or “speculation” — same goes for the chocolate pudding). This points to a true, oft-repeated logically incoherent point of argumentation for the ET view. Logic lesson one for this post.

Second, I’m SURE that the Russian de-classified files would NEVER contain any disinformation.  Right.  Like ours don’t!  This is in fact a time-honored technique for classified material.  You mix in bogus information with real information, so that double agents or moles get caught or misdirected. Those in the know on the originator’s end know what is real and what isn’t.  It’s also a technique for passing on information WITHIN a classified community to people who are an inner circle. Any reading in intelligence materials / espionage will remind you that this IS done.  Joseph Farrell has something to say in that regard as well.  For instance, he goes through several Majestic documents and finds something very curious: alongside information that points to aliens (and that material is always biological – mention of bodies or EBEs) you have other material IN THE SAME DOCUMENTS at times that point very clearly to HUMAN-created craft (mentions of GEARS in wrecked saucers, citations of specific technological components traceable via documentation back to Nazi black programs, etc.). You have both sides in the same material.   A genuine ET craft capable of interstellar travels is ruled out by the technology described, contrary to what UFO “researchers” (i.e., very biased reporters) say. So what are the explanations that are possible for ALL the information components?

1. Human craft, bodies of what witnesses thought were not humans are actually humans (after all, body witnesses only saw the remains for literally a few seconds).

2. Misidentified bodies could be human unfortunates (Redfern, The Facade) or Japanese (Redfern), or perhaps chimps (see here as well).  And as for the Russian account of pursuing “humanoid” creatures under water–on what basis are we to believe they KNEW they weren’t human?  Just because they were unexpected? Or because someone had seen a disk craft before the event? When it comes right down to it, the Russian eyewitnesses were GUESSING. Their statement wasn’t based on scientific analysis of what they were chasing.  Or maybe that was excluded in this “disclosure” dump.

3. Classified documents that our Air Force was mystified by UFOs (while other documents have military people saying they were military) and by an alien presence served to influence Russian spies (and British spies) that what they were seeing in their skies may not have been American–and this was useful for Cold War posturing.  Same for the Russians; they aren’t stupid.

So, like all the other items, the Russian “disclosure” actually proves nothing. Again.

Lest I be misunderstood on this and the previous logic post. I have no problem with the idea that there could be ETs and that they might be visiting earth.  In principle, there is nothing incoherent (or in my case, theologically alarming) about that. But I want REAL PROOF, not speculation, and not “evidence” that is propped up only by very poor logic.  UFO researchers OWE IT to those who follow their work to put up something of value, not something that is made to fit the hypothesis articualted with inept thinking.

Technorati Tags: de-classified, Farrell, files, MJ12 documents, Nazis, Paperclip, records, Russians, UFOs

London, Jul 9 (ANI): For years, Britain’s biggest UFO mystery had been kept under wraps, but now an Air Force official has admitted that an “extra-terrestrial” craft did visit the air base at Rendlesham Forest in 1980.

Former Deputy Base Commander Col Charles Halt claimed that even though the incident was later covered up, “extra-terrestrials” had been the cause of the close encounter in Suffolk.

Halt had led a group of airmen who reported seeing a triangular UFO taking off into the air, leaving traces of radiation behind.

“The UFOs I saw were structured machines moving under intelligent control and operating beyond the realm of anything I have ever seen before or since,” the Daily Star quoted Col Halt, now retired, as telling investigator Gary Heseltine.

“I believe the objects that I saw at close quarters were extra-terrestrial in origin,” he said.

He added that the Air Force later issued “dis-information” to throw the public off the scent.

His comments were hailed as “sensational” by former Ministry of Defence UFO investigator Nick Pope.

“This may help us to finally solve Britain’s biggest UFO mystery,” Pope said.

“It blows the MoD’s line that these events had ‘no defence significance’ out of the water,” he added. (ANI)

The first (and really only) question we need to ask is this: WHAT WAS IT that drove Col. Halt to conclude that the craft he saw were extraterrestrial in origin? Was it scientific analysis of something the craft left behind, or perhaps a fragment of it? Was it some biological material analyzed by science? No. The answer is plainly stated by Col. Halt: ““The UFOs I saw were structured machines moving under intelligent control and operating beyond the realm of anything I have ever seen before or since.” In other words, since he had never before or since seen such craft, they MUST have been extraterrestrial.  Really?  There are no other possibilities? His “admission: is based on his own admitted absence of explanation, nothing more.  That isn’t science.

Anyone who has read Reich of the Black Sun by Joseph A. Farrell KNOWS there is at least one other possible interpretation of such craft. Farrell painstakingly details the very real post-German unification documentary evidence that shows (contrary to official history) the Nazis had a high level of competence in nuclear power and were already researching technologies associated with what would eventually become known as quantum physics.  Farrell skillfully explains how official history arose and how the new documents released after German unification show the official party line about Nazi nuclear capabilities to be a deliberate farce. This important book by Farrell was followed by two others (The SS Brotherhood of the Bell and Nazi International) that detail how the Nazi technology fell into the hands of other countries during the Cold War and, importantly, how it relates to the UFO issue.

Until someone can come along and refute Farrell’s expose of this new evidence, not found in any prior work on German wingless/saucer technology, reports such as the new Rendlesham revelation can be filed into your “more cultural acclimation for ET visitation” folder.  With Farrell’s work, the burden of proof is now squarely on those who insist on an ET hypothesis for UFOs (and even on those who see only a spiritual explanation).

Technorati Tags: Farrell, Man-Made UFOs, MJ12, Nazis, nuclear, UFO sightings, ufology, UFOs

In Part 3 of this discussion topic, I focused on the first of two descriptions of “alien” and talked about how that definition does not conform to the biblical characters we know as demons, angels, and gods. This first description of an “alien” went like this:

1. It isn’t human

2. It is from a different planet than earth within our universe / dimension.

3. It has a determinate life span (it can and will die in this universe / dimension)

4. It has to maintain its existence through some means of nourishment (i.e., it isn’t a machine) and through reproduction.

5. It is subject to the laws of physics by which our universe / dimension operates.

I noted that I didn’t believe any of these are in the Bible and discussed how biblical descriptions of angels and demons don’t really mesh with these descriptive criteria. Here was the gist of my position:

What this means is that, if there are real space aliens (beings that meet the above criteria), then they cannot be demons, since demons do not conform to these criteria in biblical theology. That said, such aliens could certainly be evil and demonic (using the adjective, not the noun) and unworthy of trust in any way. It would also mean that such beings cannot be angels for the same reason.  They would just be aliens, a separate category. But the point is of course moot without proof of actual aliens. If aliens are interdimensional, though, then things change.  The demon equation goes back on the table (I’ll explain in part 4).

This last comment-about the “interdimensional description-is my focus in this post. There is far more congruity between that description of an “alien” than the “physical, THIS dimension” description.

First Things First: What “elohim” Means At Its Most Basic Level

Readers are likely familiar with my discussion of “elohim” when it refers to the singular God of Israel (well over 2000 times in the Bible) that constitutes part of my rebuttal to the silliness of Zecharia Sitchin and his followers. That focus isn’t where I’m going here. Yes, elohim most often refers to the lone God of Israel (upwards to 98% of the time I’d guess).  But the curious thing is that elohim is used to describe several other entities besides the God of Israel. Elohim is used to describe the following in the Hebrew Bible:

1. The God of Israel

2. Demons

3. Angels / Sons of God

4. The spirits of human dead

I’ll spare you a lengthy discussion of what’s going on here (for Bible verses and brief comments, see this paper extract drawn from one of my published articles).

Anyone who’s read much of the Bible knows that neither the Bible nor its characters consider these four personages equal in attributes (power, character, etc.).  There is a huge difference between the attributes of God and the spirit of a dead human being. So why are they all called elohim? Because elohim is, at its most basic level, a “place of residence” term.  That is, if your “proper” realm is some place other than the reality plane embodied humans occupy, then you are, by definition, an elohim.  An elohim is a being that is a resident of another, different reality plane. Elohim can visit our reality plane and we can visit theirs, at least according to the Bible. There are many occasions where elohim (angels, demons) come to earth and interact with humans. There are also occasions where prophets get to see the other “dimension” or reality plane. The most common human path to that reality plane is, of course, death. The “other side” (other reality plane) has its own geography, too (heaven, hell/Hades/Sheol, that sort of thing).

In our scientific terminology, our concept of another dimension is basically the same as the ancient idea that there are other non-human reality planes where the gods (the elohim) live. It is an unseen realm, but considered just as real as the one we by nature inhabit.

Christians use terms like “spiritual world” or “supernatural realm” to describe this “elohim reality plane,” but those terms aren’t very accurate. Why not? Because, since ALL beings that exist are created by God, who is the lone uncreated being in biblical theology, then ALL other things must be made of something–they are material. We just mistakenly equate “unseen” with “non-material” but this is not allowed by biblical theology. Only God is not made of something. He is described as an uncreated spirit in the Bible.  He inhabits a reality plane that is occupied by the unseen entities he created (and of course may occupy ours). He is “realm independent,” but his “normal” place of residence (this is not a denial of omni-presence) is the unseen reality plane.

Applying this to the Alien Question

It’s pretty easy to see how these ideas dovetail with the discussion of “aliens.” If an alien is NOT a physical life form in the sense described in Part 3 and above, then perhaps “aliens” are members of another reality plane (dimension in our modern scientific parlance) that can interact with our reality plane / dimension.

What would the ramifications be? A number of questions and possibilities arise. If there is only one other dimension, this would suggest that angels and aliens and demons are all occupants of that reality plane — but there can still be differentiation. But there could also be overlap. Flying craft are still problematic IF one could ever prove that UFOs are BOTH alien in origin/manufacture AND physical (in terms of our reality plane). But we have all read instances where a UFO will break the sound barrier and NOT create a sonic boom, suggesting that whatever it was, it wasn’t physical (in our reality plane sense).

In some ways, this second description leaves us with the same questions and categories (angels, aliens, demons, gods can all exist and not be the same – they just share the same reality plane “normally”). The Bile does not put a number on the number of dimensions there are, primarily because such questions are not the focus of the Bible.  It wasn’t written to answer this question any more than it was written to tell us what’s really in fruit cake.  But the second description can also mean overlap and therefore lend credence to the demonic view — that what we think of as aliens (the Part 3 description) are actually best understood as beings from another reality plane that can enter our reality plane as they wish–possibly for the purposes of deception.

So what does this get us?  It shows that the demonic view shouldn’t be dismissed. But it also shows that, even if aliens are from a different reality plane, we cannot use that as a conclusive argument that they must be demons. The other-dimensional view is more useful for the demonic view, but isn’t a slam dunk. In short, even the other-dimensional view doesn’t compel a single Christian view.

Technorati Tags: aliens, ET Life, ExoTheology, extra-dimensional, extraterrestrials, interdimensional, theology

Thanks to Greg Bishop’s post for the initial alert here.

Technorati Tags: alien gods, alien greys, aliens, Webre

I’ll get back to my posts on whether there is only one Christian view of aliens this weekend. For now, I wanted to post the official report on the Roswell dig conducted by Bill Doleman a few years back.  The dig, as you may recall, was the focus of a Sci Fi channel documentary hosted by Bryant Gumble called, “The Roswell Crash: Startling New Evidence.”  Here is the first paragraph of the report by way of introduction:

In the Fall of 2002-with funding by the SCI FI Channel-archeologists from the University of New Mexico Office of Contract Archeology (OCA), together with technical advisors Don Schmitt and Tom Carey, volunteer excavators and a professional geophysicist conducted a scientific investigation at the reported initial Roswell impact site in search of just such evidence. The location, known as the “debris field” and “skip site” is located on federal Bureau of Land Management land within the former Foster Ranch, where, as the story goes, rancher Mac Brazel found strange metallic debris one morning in early July 1947. He subsequently took samples of the material into Roswell to the sheriff’s office, thus launching one of the most interesting, if controversial, chapters in New Mexico’s colorful history.

The full report is here in PDF, but I have reproduced it below in full as well (it’s only five pages long).¹  I have also inserted links to images where appropriate (in the chart below, under “FS number”; photo credit: Chuck Zukowski).

2002 Material Synopsis

By Dr. Bill Doleman

In the Fall of 2002-with funding by the SCI FI Channel-archeologists from the University of New Mexico Office of Contract Archeology (OCA), together with technical advisors Don Schmitt and Tom Carey, volunteer excavators and a professional geophysicist conducted a scientific investigation at the reported initial Roswell impact site in search of just such evidence. The location, known as the “debris field” and “skip site” is located on federal Bureau of Land Management land within the former Foster Ranch, where, as the story goes, rancher Mac Brazel found strange metallic debris one morning in early July 1947. He subsequently took samples of the material into Roswell to the sheriff’s office, thus launching one of the most interesting, if controversial, chapters in New Mexico’s colorful history.

This was the first fully scientific investigation conducted at the site, and I served as principal investigator. It was performed under an Archaeological Resources Protection Act permit issued by the BLM and an official was published and submitted to the SCI FI Channel and BLM in 2003.  The report was reproduced in full in The Roswell Dig Diaries (published by Pocket Books, a Division of Simon and Schuster) in 2004.  The site was revisited briefly in 2006-again with SCI FI Channel funding as part of the series SCI FI Investigates-at which time excavations focused on the area of a possible subsurface anomaly that had been discovered in a backhoe trench in 2002. The time allotted (two days), as well as the shooting schedule, severely restricted the amount of digging that got done, and a backhoe was used to clear the area with the goal of discovering further evidence of the anomaly, but none was found.  Additional geophysical research was also done and a report is in preparation.

In addition. there was reportedly an earlier, unofficial investigation using archeological methods and sponsored by MUFON that took place in the late 1980s.  No known report of this activity was ever prepared.  The 2002 testing project did discover what could be small, shallow test pit remnants whose degree of weathering suggests they’ve been around for a number of years, however.  Given ongoing controversy about the actual physical location of the debris field, it was suggested in the report that these features serve as evidence that the investigation at least took place in the same locale others had studied in the past-in particular the MUFOM “dig.”

Post-field analyses of artifacts and soils samples from the site remain largely unpublished and incomplete to this day, however, largely because funding ran out.  The SCI FI Channel funded X-Ray diffraction analysis of soil samples from key locations on the site, ICPMS analysis (inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry) of soil samples from on- and off-site, as well as preliminary laboratory identification of six of the apparently non-natural artifacts recovered during the excavation project.  These artifacts were part of some 20 excavated items collected by the volunteer excavators under the rubric HMUO, an acronym for “historic materials of uncertain origin.” The HMUO designation was intended to offer excavators an unbiased way to identify anything that might be a non-natural product of the events of 1947.

My preliminary identification of the HMUOs in the original report divided them into three categories:  (a) definitely of natural origin (including five mineral specimens and one bone), (b) unidentified but of probable organic (i.e., biological) origin, and (c) of apparent manufactured origin.  The probable organic items were identified as such by biology faculty at UNM, while four of the apparently manufactured items were submitted to Assagai Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM for further identification (Roark and Biava, 2003).

A summary of the results of these analyses as well recommendations for further analysis was submitted to the SCI FI Channel and the project’s technical advisors-Donald Schmitt and Thomas Carey-in September, 2003, but did not lead to further funding.  The table below is drawn from my report and presents the results of my preliminary identifications for the non-natural artifacts and two apparently burned rocks of non-local origin, together with my recommendations for further analysis.  The Assagai Lab identifications have been added in blue for the four items submitted for analysis.

The Assagai report (memo to me dated August 2003) concluded thus: “In summary, all samples were found to be synthetic/plastic or cellulose, nothing that was felt to be extraterrestrial.”

Refractive index analysis of the FS 31 “orange blobs (and possibly the FS 57 item-note mention of “optical properties”) was the only laboratory testing technique mentioned, however suggesting that all the other identifications were made the same way mine were-that is “by eye.”

Apparently man-made items that were not submitted to Assagai Labs for analysis are the tentatively identified rubber and leather shoe parts from Study Unit 6, the white fibers from Study Unit 9, and the possible cotton thread from Study Unit 10.  Also not submitted were the two non-limestone rock fragments from Study Unit 15, which are of continuing interest for three reasons: (a) they are of non-local origin, (b) they appear possibly burned, and (c) there are clumps of unidentified short, straight white fibers clinging to one surface of each of the specimens.

So, yes, with the exception of the two non-local rocks, the artifacts recovered from the site appear to be of human, 20^th century manufacture, but this conclusion has not been confirmed by thorough physical and chemical analysis.  Ever since 2003, I have asserted that further forensic analyses of the HMUOs should be conducted for two purposes. The first is to comprehensively confirm, if possible, that the items are in fact of terrestrial and identifiable origin. Owing to the site’s tremendous significance in the on-going controversy over UFOs, as well as its cultural importance to not only the state of New Mexico, but the world at large, identification beyond “eye-ball” evaluation is needed to confirm the items’ terrestrial origin and preclude a non- terrestrial origin.

Secondly, any manufactured items that date to the 1947 era may shed light on the events that took place at Foster Ranch at that time.  If, as has been claimed, the military conducted a cleanup of the site, it is possible that some artifactual evidence of that activity, or others that took place in the crucial post-event period, may be is present at the site.  For those that are determined to be manufactured, attempts should be made to both determine their specific origin and use, as well as to date them, if possible, by identifying diagnostic period-of-manufacture characteristics, or-if appropriate-radiocarbon dating.

In fact, the site is located essentially “in the middle of nowhere,” and hence, the presence of 20^th century artifacts is somewhat surprising.  Possible scenarios that might account for the presence of these artifacts fall into three categories:

1.  Activities related to the event itself and the immediate post-event time frame and human activities (the crash, eyewitness visits (e.g., Brazel), military visits)

2.  Activities related to UFO research conducted at the site subsequent to the Summer of 1947

3.  Activities related to on-going ranching and livestock grazing

In addition to the postulated military cleanup, a distinct possibility is that some or all of the apparently man-made items were left there by visitors to the site, including the MUFON-sponsored testing that reportedly occurred in the 1980s.

Depending on how many times the location has been visited by researchers such as MUFON, Mr. Schmitt and his colleagues, or others, modern artifacts could have been introduced to the site at other times as well.  Only positive identification through forensic laboratory analysis can provide knowledge concerning the age and origin of these artifacts. Given these considerations, any information concerning past visits to the site by Mr. Schmitt and others would be of great aid in better understanding the origin of 20^th century artifacts recovered from the site surface excavated contexts.  In particular, any information concerning the nature of the MUFON excavations, their duration, the number of individuals present, the activities conducted, and whatever items that might have been lost or discarded would be invaluable.

I have used the term “forensic” because it refers to the use of scientific methods in legal issues and courts of law-i.e., in matter where the validity of the conclusions must be as close to 100% certainty as possible.  That’s also the kind of certainty needed if proof of the Roswell event (or any such claim), as well as public acceptance is to be achieved. Forensic material analyses fall into two general categories. The first might be called specialist-based analyses in which a scientist who specializes in a particular kind of material identifies specimens, often consulting a library of representative examples. The second category might be called chemistry/physics-based.  This approach involves the use of a variety of analytical technologies to determine the chemical (or elemental) composition and/or physical properties of unknown materials, and uses the resulting information to identify them. As such, chemistry/physics-based methods (of which exists a vast array) are often used in service of the overall forensic analysis.

I am suggesting that professional forensic scientists-preferably those at a reputable forensic laboratory-be consulted for guidance in identifying the Foster Ranch site HMUOS and in the choice of appropriate instrument analyses.  The major purpose of our press conference was to publicize the need for the analyses in hopes that a forensic laboratory or funder or both would step forward.  It should be noted here that attempts were made to have the HMUOs studied by both the FBI (request made through the Roswell Field Office of the BLM), and New Mexico State crime Lab (request made through the governor’s office), but that neither request was granted.  Here are some thoughts relating to analysis of some of the artifacts.

As any fan of the many forensic crime dramas popular on television today is aware, shoes-particularly their soles-are often identifiable as to manufacturer and date.  Perhaps the SU 6 shoe parts, which include apparent sole fragments, may be identifiable as to origin and time frame.  Also, given its possible similarity to the “metallic debris” originally reported in 1947 by eyewitnesses, the “gray film” material from SU 17 (FS No. 58) is of particular interest, despite its apparent similarity to duct tape or trash bag material.  Equally interesting is the SU 17 thread (FS 32), which appears to be dark green, a color common in US Army fatigues of the post-war era. Need I say more about the implications of finding military fatigue thread at this site?

At present, the white fibers from SU 9 remain a mystery.  The material was not shown to UNM biology faculty, and it does not look much like fur of any sort.  Similarly, the SU 15 rock fragments, their burned appearance, and the short white fibers remain unexplained, but of interest because of the possibility that a strong impact could have produced burning.

Dating the HMUOs is also a crucial analytical goal.  In addition to forensic identification and analysis, radiocarbon (C-14) dating of certain artifacts may be possible.  Hence, the SU 10 thread, the SU 9 white fibers, and the SU 6 “shoe leather”-if they are in fact biological in origin-may be datable.

In summary, artifacts from five different excavated study units on the Foster Ranch “debris site” warrant further study by the appropriate scientists using appropriate analytical techniques.  Better identification-and dating where possible-is necessary to conclusively determine is any of the items could be of non-terrestrial origin.  Alternatively, if the artifacts are of modern origin, knowledge of their age and origin might increase knowledge of the events of 1947 and offer invaluable insight into the site’s history.

Table. HMUOs (historic materials of uncertain origin) from the Foster Ranch skip site and debris field

Notes: Study Unit (SU) is the unique identifying number assigned to each excavation unit (e.g., test pit); Level indicates depth, with 1 indicating 0-5 cm, 2=5-10 cm, etc.; FS number is the unique number assigned to each SU and Level combination, Item Numbers are assigned to separate items from the same FS.

Technorati Tags: archaeology, debris, Doleman, Roswell, U.S. military, ufology, UFOs