/Nexus - 0306 - New Times Magazine/pages/0066/image.png)
Page Content (OCR)
Master Sergeant Bob Allen, USAF security coordinator at a top-secret research facility near Tonapah, Nevada, recognised the panels on the film: “The army came, after many years, to the con- clusion that the beings had taken the boxes out with them because they were waiting to be picked up. Each panel was constructed for each of the ETs individually. They could be fitted into slots in various apparatus. The entire system—propulsion, navigation, everything—could be started and controlled by these panels. We ~ tried it too, but our brain frequency was not fast enough to operate them." According to Allen, they were presented, together with other "alien hardware", every 10 years to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories for examination as the basis of latest state-of-the-art science.” This was confirmed by a USAF engineer, working for Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque, who identified them as some kind of "biofeedback computers responding to neural impulses”.* "We learned how to feed information into them, but we were not able to get information out of them,” he added. Bill Uhouse, a mechanical design engineer who worked at the top-secret facility at Area 51 on the Nevada test site—where he allegedly worked with alien technology—identified them as "per- sonal control panels. They served to communicate with the indi- vidual member of the crew and possibly to interact with a com- puter on board or, better, the steering unit. When the craft crashed, each crew member took his panel with him. Possibly they served as communication with a mother ship, which could locate and rescue them."” THE DEBRIS FOOTAGE The Santilli footage showing metal samples was analysed by Dennis W. Murphy, who has an Academy of Science degree in marine diving technology and welding and has studied all types of metalwork. He concluded: "I have never seen anything that resembles the manufacturing techniques used in the construction of the I-beams in the Santilli debris footage. I know of no manufacturing process that could produce the multitude of details found on the l-beams.” Murphy refused possibilities like milling ("When I look at the lettering I see precise rounds as part of the symbols. 1 do not think that you can do this with current milling machines...”), extrusion, rolling, casting, moulding ("against moulding...the apparent lack of weight for all the pieces..., the acute right-angles at the roots, the thinness of the flanges of the I-beam and the fine- ly detailed definition of the raised symbols...", which could only be produced with metal of a high density which is much heavier than the indicated weight), and the use of foam-core paperboard ("the crystalline nature of the break in the broken beams, the reflectivity of the material in the break, the rigidity of the I- beams...” argue against this possibility, according to Murphy). The nature of fractures, the flexible, light and highly reflective appearance of the I-beams baffled Murphy and brought him to the conclusion that, indeed, metal with an extremely fine, crystalline structure had been used, manufactured with an unknown tech- nique.** The same conclusion was drawn by Prof. Dr Malanga of the University of Pisa, Italy. . NEXUS ¢ 65 OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 1996