Claim: Sighted UFO dripped molten metal onto ground on December 16th in Wickham, UK

[SuppaCoup]

The claim is made in this thread on reddit:
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1hkuhfv/a_ufo_just_dripped_a_molten_metal_like_material/

This is all fresh in my mind and I'm still trying to process what happened.

During the evening of the 16th of December I noticed a strange glowing object hovering towards the back of my house. I live in the countryside in the South of England (Wickham), and behind my house there is nothing, no buildings, no street lights, it's just a large grassy area / field where I often walk my dog.

The object in question was circular or orb shaped, and was very bright to the point where my eyes couldn't focus on it. It reminded me of when you look at a star through a telescope, it's slightly clearer but you can't make out what it is due to the amount of light being emitted.

Due to it happening at night my IPhone camera did a terrible job at picking it up. The object made no noise, and the only reason I knew it was there was because I let my dog out for her evening toilet before bed, and it was in my line of view as I opened the backdoor. The whole encounter lasted I would say around a minute, if I had let my dog out in the garden a few minutes before or after I would never have seen it.

About 20 seconds after initially spotting it I noticed that it appeared to be dripping a molten-like metal onto the ground. After doing this multiple times it started moving left in the sky, and after this it vanished from sight due to moving behind the large Oak trees on my property that are around 40 feet in height. (I'll try and highlight this in one of the images, I've also adjusted the brightness to help highlight the object as it's quite difficult to make out .)

I came upstairs and updated my husband about what I had just seen, and he suggested that the next morning we should head out into the field behind our house with his metal detector.

It took a while but we started finding clumps of metal like materials that looked as though they had been fused and heated at an extreme temperature and then cooled. The items also appeared multilayered.

Shortly after the sighting, there were helicopters in the area, we could hear them from our bedroom flying over our house so we knew they were close, however I will say that living in the South of England there are multiple military sites, so not sure if that's a correlation.

I've never seen anything like this before, and the whole encounter probably lasted no more than 60 seconds as the object was constantly moving the whole time.

My question is what did I see? Is it common for UFOs to drip metal, or could this have been something different? Is it worth sending these metal things off somewhere to get them tested and if so where would I send them, a university?

Thanks

Also included are images of the alleged UFO and its drippings:

There's a few more such images in the thread but I think that these are the best of them.
I'm not sure what to think of this personally, and I'm unsure if the metal bits that were found are actually connected to this sighting given the possibility of foundry offcasts or the like. It certainly is an interesting account.

 

[John J.]

The object in question was circular or orb shaped, and was very bright to the point where my eyes couldn't focus on it. It reminded me of when you look at a star through a telescope

When you look at a star through a telescope, it looks like a star. It is not circular or "orb-shaped" unless it's poorly focussed.
The claimant has chosen to use this comparison, but clearly has no practical experience of looking at stars through a telescope.

And "orb-shaped?" Frankly, not many people outside the "believer" UFO (and haunted dusty graveyard) narratives, heraldry or Crown Jewels curators describes balls or spheres as "orbs".

Is it common for UFOs to drip metal, or could this have been something different?

The question presupposes that UFOs are physical objects with strange behaviours.
Influential "Ufologist" Jacques Vallee clearly suspects UFOs, meaning intelligently controlled craft from another solar system/ time/ dimension (whatever that means), sometimes leave metallic evidence. I've attached "Physical Analyses in Ten Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Material Samples", J. Vallee, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12 (3) 1998 below.

Actual laboratory testing of claimed UFO ejecta provided by Vallee and investigated by his co-authors failed to support his hypothesis (despite serious oversights, non-sequiturs, in-paper contradictions and incorrect citations), see Metabunk thread
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?

The metal blob in the photo looks like (to me) a lump of solder, pewter or maybe a white metal tin-lead alloy of the type used by wargamers (e.g. Dungeons and Dragons-type figures). Cheap and easy to melt. -I'll happily defer to those with more practical knowledge of metalwork!

Suspect this is a hoax.

 

[Minus0]

Another user calls out op for a fake story. Apparently you can buy those objects


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1hkuhfv/comment/m3hjz5k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

 

[AmberRobot]

The object in question was circular or orb shaped, and was very bright to the point where my eyes couldn't focus on it. It reminded me of when you look at a star through a telescope

When you look at a star through a telescope, it looks like a star. It is not circular or "orb-shaped" unless it's poorly focussed.
The claimant has chosen to use this comparison, but clearly has no practical experience of looking at stars through a telescope.

no star other, other than the Sun, will be "very bright" through a telescope. I am assuming this guy isn't a professional astronomer

 

[FatPhil]

no star other, other than the Sun, will be "very bright" through a telescope. I am assuming this guy isn't a professional astronomer

Given that it was described as circular rather than point-like, I'm guessing he's thinking of that other well-known star, the moon.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

My immediate feeling was that this is a hoax. The story is stilted and artificial. The photo looks staged. The image is crisp and doesn't look like a handheld long exposure in a low light environment. More like a camera on a tripod.

I don't know that the lump of metal is a meteorite... Maybe.

It just looks like a lump of aluminum to me. Back when boys took metal shop in high school we did sand castings.

This reminds me of the lumps of aluminum you'd find here and there.

 

[jarlrmai]

It has a patina/dirt on it that makes it look like whatever the source of the metal it's been in that form for some time.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Due to it happening at night my IPhone camera did a terrible job at picking it up.

Due to the low light conditions, this would have to have been a long exposure. And yet the photo has no camera shake blur. It's also well composed. A level camera and so forth. This feels like a shot made from a tripod mounted camera.

This shot is very professional. Good lighting, good background and good focus. It looks like something you'd see in a catalog advertisement. Which does support the idea that this is a repurposed photo of an iron meteorite specimen.

The whole thing feels very artificial and well prepared. Not the kind of thing you'd expect on an ad hoc basis from an excited witness.

 

[Ravi]

I have a hard time believing that IF an ufo would drop metal somewhere, it would be found. Looking at the image of the object in the sky, it was obviously not right above him. So we are made to believe he went there in the dark and found the metal parts?

 

[Ann K]

"Wow, we have a significant find that needs investigation. I know how to get serious experts to look at it! We'll just post it under "UFO" in Reddit."

I don't think that's generally considered the path to truth...

 

[Eburacum]

Try dropping molten metal from a height into a field. The results would not look as clean as that, and would probably be shaped more like solidified droplets, something like tektites.

 

[Mendel]

Try dropping molten metal from a height into a field. The results would not look as clean as that, and would probably be shaped more like solidified droplets, something like tektites.

Dropping solder on something dry and firm always ended up looking like solidified splats, flat and thin and sharp-edged.

The idea that this lump has no sharp edges because it has been tumbled by a rock collector makes sense to me.

Back when boys took metal shop in high school we did sand castings.

Well, if a meteorite hits a field, that's what I'd expect would happen?

 

[Mendel]

Could it have been a hot air balloon dropping ballast, keeping in mind they're unlikely to fly at night?

 

[Duke]

My immediate feeling was that this is a hoax. The story is stilted and artificial. The photo looks staged. The image is crisp and doesn't look like a handheld long exposure in a low light environment. More like a camera on a tripod.

I don't know that the lump of metal is a meteorite... Maybe.

It just looks like a lump of aluminum to me. Back when boys took metal shop in high school we did sand castings.
View attachment 75270

This reminds me of the lumps of aluminum you'd find here and there.

The bits of molten metal sounds like the Maury Island hoax that predated Ken Arnold's sighting by a few days.

Dahl said that one of the objects "began spewing forth what seemed like thousands of newspapers from somewhere on the inside of its center. These newspapers, which turned out to be a white type of very light weight metal, fluttered to earth". According to Dahl, a substance resembling lava rocks fell onto their boat, breaking a worker's arm and killing a dog.[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maury_Island_incident

 

[JMartJr]

Another user calls out op for a fake story. Apparently you can buy those objects


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1hkuhfv/comment/m3hjz5k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

A quick Google image search for the opening posts image of fingers holding the bit of metal fins it here and there as a claimed bit of UFO, and does not find it as, say, a stock image of something, which I had woncered about. HOWEVER, without mentioning meteorites in the search (or anything else, just uploading the image) most of the images found that are NOT this one are labeled as the "Campo de Cielo" meteorites mentioned in Minus0's post.

This seems suggestive...

 

[Trailblazer]

We don't even know which Wickham the OP is talking about. There are (at least) two in southern England - one in Berkshire and one in Hampshire. The Berkshire one is pretty tiny to I assume it was the Hampshire one, although Berkshire may be closer to military helicopter activity.

 

[PacketSniffer5000]

As a Redditor (u/onehedgeman) noted, the story and images cohere somewhat with a target flare, which explains the story, chute-like shape on one of the photos, and molten metal from the flare casing, as well as it being blown by the wind. (Happy Christmas)

 

[John J.]

As a Redditor (u/onehedgeman) noted, the story and images cohere somewhat with a target flare

Wickham, Berkshire is relatively close to army training areas on Salisbury Plain in adjacent Wiltshire, but far enough away to make accidental deployment of a target flare unlikely (can't be ruled out entirely, of course).

(Maps from Wikipedia, Salisbury Plain and Google).
Incidentally, had forgotten how close Warminster is to the training area,

UFO sightings
Warminster was the location for a number of UFO sightings during the 1960s and 1970s. The first sighting was recorded on 25 December 1964 by Arthur Shuttlewood, who compiled a dossier of further sightings over the following year which he gave to the Daily Mirror to publish. The newspaper story gained the town some notoriety for UFO sightings, leading to a BBC documentary in 1966, several books on the sightings, a 2009 conference on UFOs, and a 2010 conference with UFO expert Nick Pope.

Wikipedia, Warminster.

Wickham, Hampshire is approx. 11 miles from a large naval base in Portsmouth, where helicopters frequently come and go,
but there are no inland live-fire areas for support weapons, AFVs or aircraft in the area that I'm aware of.

 

[elvenwear]

Dropping solder on something dry and firm always ended up looking like solidified splats, flat and thin and sharp-edged.

I think what Eburacum was suggesting was that as the molten metal was falling it would be spherical. If it fell from a great height, it would have time to cool and solidify before impact and thus wouldn't look like those metal splats we saw.

 

[Mendel]

I think what Eburacum was suggesting was that as the molten metal was falling it would be spherical. If it fell from a great height, it would have time to cool and solidify before impact and thus wouldn't look like those metal splats we saw.

That would depend on their size though? Larger objects cool more slowly.

And they could be tumbling?

 

[elvenwear]

That would depend on their size though? Larger objects cool more slowly.

That is true. The size and height would need to be just right.

And they could be tumbling?

If they're spherical, tumbling would be irrelevant.

They used to make Drop-On Glass Beads by firing a molten spray of glass into the air from the top of a tower and into water. These are very small (they are the ones used in reflective paint for road signs) but a small tower wouldn't be that high. Metal conducts heat far better than glass, so from any appreciable height, you'd think they'd cool enough on the way down so they wouldn't splat. I've no idea what size and height would be necessary, though.

I have a few issues with the account itself.

What is mentioned is she noticed the object while inside the house and looking the back door (meaning the object was not directly overhead). Then it dripped metal (meaning it was overhead). Then it disappeared off to the left. I see no point in the story where the UAP was directly over the house. It seems like the UAP moved from behind the house to the right to behind the house on the left as it disappeared. I don't see anything indicating the object was ever overhead.

What reason do we have to connect the dot in the sky with falling metal? Why couldn't it be a UAP and an angry neighbour flinging solder over the fence? This is not explained in the account. In the 60 second event, she said she noticed after 20 seconds metal was splatting on the ground. I would think molten iron would be white hot and glowing on the way down and when it hit the ground. It would start to glow red hot once it cooled down. There's no mention of noticing glowing dots falling from the place where the UAP was. There's no explanation as to how she knew it was metal.

There is no mention of the terror she felt when she realised liquid metal was falling from the sky. It seems to me it would be dangerous to be in that situation. If there was really falling molten metal and you were looking up, you'd surely get hit in the eye or at least in the face.

This story does not ring true at all.

 

[JMartJr]

They used to make Drop-On Glass Beads by firing a molten spray of glass into the air from the top of a tower and into water.

Lead shot. too.

A shot tower is a tower designed for the production of small-diameter shot balls by free fall of molten lead, which is then caught in a water basin. The shot is primarily used for projectiles in shotguns, and for ballast, radiation shielding, and other applications for which small lead balls are useful.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_tower

 

[Ann K]

They used to make Drop-On Glass Beads by firing a molten spray of glass into the air from the top of a tower and into water. These are very small (they are the ones used in reflective paint for road signs) but a small tower wouldn't be that high.

And they are spherical. When I was in high school I worked for a small company that sold materials such as traffic paint. Someone managed to break a bag of those tiny beads in the office area, and it took forever to clean up the mess. A large and heavy desk could be rolled with a fingertip.

 

[John J.]

What is mentioned is she noticed the object while inside the house and looking the back door (meaning the object was not directly overhead). Then it dripped metal (meaning it was overhead).

I'm not sure that's a problem in itself; she never claims the light was overhead.
I agree that it must be unlikely that she could have known that the object was dripping "molten-like metal", even if that's what it looked like to her, so her interpretation and re-telling of what she saw might be questionable- maybe influenced/ reinforced by finding pieces of waste metal the following day.

I have a few issues with the account itself.

Likewise. It's very light on checkable details. The direction in which she saw the light(s) might be useful if we knew which Wickham she lived in!
As well as her use of the word "orb" (which we often see on these threads, and perhaps reading through UFO reports, but which isn't that widely used otherwise), the lady says

...the whole encounter probably lasted no more than 60 seconds

"Encounter"?! I suspect she's not UFO-naïve, if that's a thing.

The witness is aware that military helicopters might operate approx. a dozen miles away. This holds true for Wickham in Berkshire (Salisbury Plain training area in neighbouring Wiltshire) and Wickham in Hampshire (HM Naval Base Portsmouth):

Shortly after the sighting, there were helicopters in the area, we could hear them from our bedroom flying over our house so we knew they were close, however I will say that living in the South of England there are multiple military sites

...but doesn't seem to consider that she might have witnessed helo-related activity a little earlier.
It could be yet another case of an unidentified [by the witness] object, size uncertain, so distance uncertain.
The witness perceives the light(s) as being over the field /common/ heathland behind her house, but it might have been much further away.
The witness mentions the sound of helicopters a short time after her "orb" sighting (she doesn't mention seeing them, so probably this was after she's called the dog back in and locked up for the night), but she doesn't wonder if what she saw was caused by a helicopter- instead, her account might give the impression of something more from American UFO Lore:
(1) Mysterious "craft" / lights in sky,
(2) Shortly after, helicopters -although the witness knows these are not uncommon in the area
(3) No apparent consideration that (2) might have caused (1), so
(4) It might be inferred by some (mainly UFO enthusiasts?) that (2) is a response to (1), not a possible cause- The Authorities (or whoever) know more than they're telling us!

As a Redditor (u/onehedgeman) noted, the story and images cohere somewhat with a target flare, which explains the story, chute-like shape on one of the photos, and molten metal from the flare casing

Though I think it's unlikely (not impossible) that the sighting is due to a target flare by itself, on reflection I wonder if the witness saw a helicopter some miles away dropping flares, or for whatever reason using other pyrotechnics/ light sources.

This is more likely if "our" Wickham is in Berkshire and the witness was looking approximately to the south-west towards Salisbury Plain (Google image search Salisbury Plain helicopters), where there are frequent live-firing exercises and equipment evaluation trials (e.g. in-flight helicopter crews simultaneously piloting drones,
"Leonardo demonstrates helicopter-UAV teaming in the UK with its AW159 Wildcat", 20/10/2020, European Defence Review).
If the account given by the witness is in good faith, maybe the found metal fragments were coincidental.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Without wanting to confuse things, there's a village called Wickham Market in Suffolk. In England it's quite common for some place names of more than one word to be contracted*, e.g. Hemel = Hemel Hempstead, Bognor = Bognor Regis, Stoke = Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle is generally understood to refer to Newcastle upon Tyne, not Newcastle-under-Lyme.
With villages, a shortened name might be used locally but not recognised elsewhere, so there might be an outside chance the witness is in this "Wickham".

Wickham Market is only approx. 6 miles, 9.66 km from the supposed Rendlesham Forest UFO landing site of December 1980
(thread here, Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident plus discussion on other threads).
I thought the bases involved, RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge (for all practical purposes USAF bases) had been entirely decommissioned, but a quick check on Wikipedia revealed Woodbridge has a military presence;
Wikipedia, MOD Woodbridge

...MOD Woodbridge is a military installation located near the town of Woodbridge, in Suffolk, England. The site opened in 2006 and is operated by the British Army and incorporates both Rock Barracks and Woodbridge Airfield. The barracks are home to two Royal Engineers regiments. The airfield is used periodically by helicopters of the Army Air Corps for training exercises.

(My emphasis). Satellite views courtesy of Google Maps:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* A convention that should be followed by the people of Chorlton-cum-Hardy if they have any decency at all.

 

[Ann K]

Without wanting to confuse things, there's a village called Wickham Market in Suffolk. In England it's quite common for some place names of more than one word to be contracted*, e.g. Hemel = Hemel Hempstead, Bognor = Bognor Regis, Stoke = Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle is generally understood to refer to Newcastle upon Tyne, not Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Looking up the origin, I get this:

The name Wickham has its roots in Old English, and its etymology is both intriguing and meaningful. It is derived from the words "wic" and "ham," where "wic" means "village" or "dwelling place," and "ham" refers to "home" or "estate."

(I expect "wic" might have come from the Latin "vicus".)
In other words, it's a pretty generic name.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Wickham Market is only approx. 6 miles, 9.66 km from the supposed Rendlesham Forest UFO landing site of December 1980

Whoa! This might have been near Rendlesham and Bentwaters?! Well then it IS a UFO and I would expect our witness to reveal, some 10+years from now, the secret binary code that was transmitted by the UFO.

Or maybe they just saw the Port Orford lighthouse.

 

[John J.]

Or maybe they just saw the Port Orford lighthouse.

We can draw a clearer conclusion than that, Dave:

Orfordness Lighthouse
In winter storms in early 2020, the lighthouse's oil store was swept away and only the tower remained undamaged. The Times reported on 18 July 2020 that work on demolition had begun. It quoted Nicholas Gold of the Trust as saying: "In recent months the building has become a hazard." By mid-August, the lighthouse had been completely demolished

Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orfordness_Lighthouse

No lighthouse = aliens.

Or maybe bored helicopter loadmasters and gunners lobbing flaming Christmas Puddings, "acquired" from regimental stores, at suitably bemused infantry OPFOR on the ground.

I don't know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but by God, they frighten me.

Duke of Wellington

 

[NorCal Dave]

Maybe it wasn't in Wickham UK, rather in Wickham NJ, drone capital of the world. Here's some UFO guy seemingly reposting the same story, but now it's in NJ:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6Y75Ptvaug


Seems to come from a reddit post:

But now Garry Nolan is interested:

Supposedly this is from NoEmma2702

I was confused at first as the host reads the standard story that is in the OP saying this took place in the UK. Then he goes on to basically debunk it as if he read this thread. Finaly he says "some people" are claiming this happened in NJ, Including the post that Nolan commented on, so that's why he put that in the title:

I guess. Also sounds a bit like he saw this story and found a reason to combine it with drones over NJ. Always interesting to see how these stories meld and evolve over time.

Also seen here:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/peo...S&cvid=112770bef721433684b75ff50dcda124&ei=72

 

[John J.]

But now Garry Nolan is interested:

Nolan and Jacques Vallee seem to have an ongoing belief that UFOs might need to eject molten metal, or rely on liquid metals in some form. This allows any scraps of melted metal waste, or sites of delinquent/ improvised/ accidental metal melting and spillage to be regarded as evidence of the physical existence of UFOs.

Unfortunately their 2022 paper,
"Improved instrumental techniques, including isotopic analysis, applicable to the characterization of unusual materials with potential relevance to aerospace forensics", Garry P. Nolan, Jacques F. Vallee, Sizun Jiang and Larry G. Lemke, Progress in Aerospace Sciences Vol. 128, 1 January 2022, uses an uncited (and professionally unidentified) source, J. Roser, describing a perhaps borderline-scientific proposal for a liquid metal reactor, to support their view.

Roser's description of waste metals that might need ejection does not match the samples investigated by Nolan, Vallee et al.,
or indeed samples Vallee acquired from near Bogota 23 years earlier. So why did they include Roser's speculations?
Comparing Roser's speculative reactor waste with their own sample...

This discarded material would contain Al-27, P-11, iron from the original melt or housing erosion, plus isotopes of nuclei close to aluminum and phosphorus such as Mg, Na, Si and S

Roser, quoted by the authors, pg. 17 para. 7, pg. 18 para 1.
"P-11" should be "P-31" as per Vallee 1998.
One has to question the design of a flying vehicle which occasionally needs to dump kilos of melted nuclear reactor housing.

The authors write,

Iron and Silicon were indeed found in our Council Bluffs samples, but the other elements were not present

(pg. 18 para. 1).
This is a serious in-paper contradiction: Phosphorus (P) wasn't found, but aluminium-27 clearly was, as was magnesium, see Figs. 7, 8A, 9; sodium (Na) was indicated (Figs. 7, 8A) but later discarded for reasons already mentioned. In fact, Al-27 was the most abundant element in 2 of the 3 unoxidized samples (1 and 3) and both the more problematic oxidized samples (2 and 4) if Figure 9 displays "Relative ratios of the elements for each of the subsamples" as the authors claim (see Figure 9, pg. 15, and "Charts as per Figure 9", above).
Aluminium is not only present, it is the most common element detected by the authors. The error contained in the quote above is serious, and extraordinary.

Metabunk thread Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?

Nolan and Vallee's samples cannot be from the one (hypothetical) liquid metal reactor design that they can refer to (albeit without formal citations!)
Disturbingly, they also claim here that the most abundant element found in their samples, as displayed in their own tables and charts, was not found. And this dog's breakfast got published .

It gets worse, with a frankly dreadful use of a cited source that in absolutely no way says what Nolan, Vallee et al. claim it does,
enabling them to use it as evidence for liquid metal use in advanced aircraft, when it is no such thing:

Along with the exciting conjecture about liquid metals in nuclear reactors, the authors write

...liquid metal designs have been proposed... ...for superconducting airborne platforms [46].

(Pg. 17 para. 5, author's italics).
That reference [46] on page 20 gives us,
46. Southall, H.L. and C.E. Oberly, "System Considerations for Airborne, High-power Superconducting Generators". Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1979. 15(1): p. 711.
... ...

(1) The Southall and Oberly paper is not in any way about "superconducting airborne platforms". It is not about aircraft design or propulsion.
It is about superconducting airborne generators, i.e. generators for electricity production on board airborne platforms. A generator is not an "airborne platform", an aircraft is. Throughout the Southall/ Oberly paper it is assumed that the power source for the generator is a conventional (aero engine) turbine. Nolan, Vallee et al.'s use of the phrase "superconducting airborne platforms" is misleading, and their use of italics to imply significance unwarranted.

(2) There is nothing in Southall and Oberly's 1979 paper about liquid metal. Absolutely nothing at all. Throughout the paper it is assumed that windings of superconducting wire are to be used.

The application of multifilament Nb3Sn has permitted a large thermal margin to be designed into the rotating field winding. ...Preliminary selection of a multifilament Nb3Sn cable has resulted from these considerations. The cable will carry 864 amperes at 8.5K and 6.8 Tesla.

(Abstract, pg. 1, Southall and Oberly 1979).

Nolan and Vallee appear to believe that UFOs have been observed dropping molten metal, but the samples they have do not have the physical characteristics required of metallic ejecta by the one (unreferenced) theoretical description of a liquid metal reactor that they mention. Their samples have terrestrial isotopic ratios.
Nolan and Vallee somehow forget what the most abundant element in their analysed samples is. Which is inexplicable.
(As described later in that post, their samples have a composition consistent with workshop waste or a poorly-mixed improvised thermite).
No matter; that UFOs drip molten metal seems to have become a matter of faith.
An engineering paper, which makes no reference or allusion to liquid metal whatsoever, and which is not about aircraft propulsion, is cited by Nolan, Vallee et al. as evidence that
"...liquid metal designs have been proposed... ...for superconducting airborne platforms"...
...when it says nothing of the sort.

In this take on physics, contrary evidence can be ignored, inconvenient findings forgotten, and cited papers say what you want them to say even when they don't.

At this time, I can't entirely rule out that some nondescript metallic waste or slag might be found in the state of New Jersey.
Which might be "...very interesting" to those who conflate random shi rubbish with evidence of alien visitation.

 

[Ann K]

Nolan and Jacques Vallee seem to have an ongoing belief that UFOs might need to eject molten metal, or rely on liquid metals in some form.

Is this perhaps a reaction to the oft-heard criticism "It can't go THAT fast in our atmosphere without leaving a heat signature"? This is one way to get ahead of that criticism. Of course, traveling across a galaxy only to burn up when you reach earth is a bone-headed mistake to make, and doesn't go with the advanced technological skills imputed to these ETs. And any aircraft that regularly ablated wouldn't be air-worthy for long. But I guess if you can invent characteristics, you can invent an answer for any little problems that arise...

 

[jarlrmai]

There's few famous UFO videos of things dripping stuff, they are most likely flares or Chinese lanterns. So the 'theory' may come from there but because they talk about it disconnected from the videos, people hear about the theory independently from the videos and think, these guys are geniuses and it strengthens belief in both the people and their theory and the videos, just some classic circular reinforcement that's common to ufology.

 

[John J.]

There's few famous UFO videos of things dripping stuff, they are most likely flares or Chinese lanterns. So the 'theory' may come from there...

Maybe in part. Its a bit chicken-and-egg; there are some reports of UFOs dropping stuff that pre-date domestic video (let alone phone cameras). I guess Chinese lanterns (and similar hobby hot-air balloons) have been around a long time.

As we see in post #28, Garry Nolan is interested in a still photo of a bit of melted metal said to be from a UFO even before he's checked the accompanying story (which would appear to be false if the account originated in England, not NJ), which seems a rather low bar to set regarding interest in claimed evidence.

@Duke reminded us of a 1947 claim of metal or metal-like stuff raining down from aerial "doughnuts", widely thought to be a hoax (but I don't know much about it, I'll do some reading):

The bits of molten metal sounds like the Maury Island hoax that predated Ken Arnold's sighting by a few days.

Of course, many people in the 20th century experienced pieces of metal and worse falling from the skies, often delivered by then-cutting-edge technologies. Firestorms, V1s, V2s, early jets and the atomic bombs might have reinforced the idea that air warfare had become the realm of aloof planners, engineers and scientists in distant, secret facilities.

Vallee refers to the Maury Island incident in
"Physical Analyses in Ten Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Material Samples", Jacques F. Vallee, 1998; Journal of Scientific Exploration 12 (3) (PDF below).

The start of his abstract reads

A survey of ten cases of unexplained aerial phenomena accompanied by material residues shows a broad distribution of natural elements, many of which are metallic in nature. They can be roughly described as belonging in two categories: "light materials" of high conductivity such as aluminum, and "slag-like materials" reminiscent of industrial byproducts.

Vallee tabulates information about a number of claimed samples from UFOs, including a mainly aluminium specimen which two students claimed to have witnessed being "squirted" in a molten state from a UFO, Bogota 1975 or 1976, and the poorly-mixed post-reaction or post-melt Al/Fe/Si/Mg material supposedly from a find at Council Bluffs, 1977 (later investigated by Vallee alongside Nolan, Jiang and Lemke, 2022, a paper I'm obsessed with because of its, um, almost unique quality).

As far as I know, all samples ever examined have had terrestrial-norm isotopic ratios. Interestingly most consist mainly of relatively cheap, readily available metals and/ or "...'slag-like materials' reminiscent of industrial byproducts" to use Vallee's phrase.
But Jacques Vallee doesn't seem to draw the obvious conclusion.
One sample Vallee describes that briefly interested me was a mainly tungsten chunk found after a UFO sighting in Väddö island, Sweden, 1956; I wondered if it had been part of an anti-tank round whose flight- perhaps with other rounds / pyrotechnics- had been misidentified by the witnesses/ finders*.
Whatever, the item was examined by SAAB in Sweden and by Danish and German labs,

The general conclusion was that the object was composed of tungsten carbide and cobalt, consistent with manufactured products. According to von Ludwiger, all industrial countries have companies which produce such hard metals, and the manufacturing technology is in principle the same ... The overall quality of the material was outstanding, but not unusual for the early 1950s.

(My bold), Vallee, 1998. This information didn't stop Vallee including the item in his table.

Essentially, report an unidentified light in the sky, find some misshapen metal debris or slag, and UFOlogists are interested:
Here is tangible evidence, the evidence that sceptics so often claim doesn't exist.
To UFOlogists It's practically gold dust. Sadly UFOs don't literally eject gold dust, just the sort of stuff you find in a workshop waste bin or might find in the soil of a place that once had a foundry, railroad works etc. nearby.

Quick prediction about the Wickham metal debris: If it is ever analysed by a dependable laboratory, it will be found to be made of inexpensive, commonly found metal(s) with terrestrial isotopic norms.

@NorCal Dave's Meta Materials From UFOs thread examines the claims about supposedly UFO-related materials made by some UFO enthusiasts (and the hoaxers who supplied them) in some depth.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*By no means a debunk, but a quick check and there is a military installation and (mainly over-water) gunnery range on Väddö.

From 1942, Väddö firing range came to be used by the Stockholm Anti-Aircraft Regiment... and the Anti-Aircraft Shooting School .

Wikipedia, Väddö shooting range ("Väddö skjutfält", machine translated Swedish to English).

The base/ live-fire area, Väddö skjutfält, was expanded in 1945 and used mainly by AA artillery until 2000.
Maybe they've shot down a UFO in 1956!

Hang on, how did a nation with a population of 8 million in 1967- the same as New York- develop the SAAB 37 Viggen?

First plane to fly with an IC-based digital computer... it was SAAB's labs that examined the Väddö find... anyone got Jacques Vallee's phone number?

 

[Mendel]

Vallee tabulates information about a number of claimed samples from UFOs, including a mainly aluminium specimen which two students claimed to have witnessed being "squirted" in a molten state from a UFO, Bogota 1975 or 1976, and the poorly-mixed post-reaction or post-melt Al/Fe/Si/Mg material supposedly from a find at Council Bluffs, 1977 (later investigated by Vallee alongside Nolan, Jiang and Lemke, 2022, a paper I'm obsessed with because of its, um, almost unique quality).

I'd like to point out that the link leads to John's award-winning Metabunk thread, with a discussion of Council Bluffs and the headline "Mystery Metal falls from the Sky".

As we see in post #28, Garry Nolan is interested in a still photo of a bit of melted metal said to be from a UFO even before he's checked the accompanying story (which would appear to be false if the account originated in England, not NJ), which seems a rather low bar to set regarding interest in claimed evidence.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/meta-materials-from-ufos.12995/ by @NorCal Dave drives home the point that the UFO community has never cared about provenance if a good story was to be had.

 

[JMartJr]

Maybe in part. Its a bit chicken-and-egg; there are some reports of UFOs dropping stuff that pre-date domestic video (let alone phone cameras). I guess Chinese lanterns (and similar hobby hot-air balloons) have been around a long time.

"Kids" (of all ages) have been known to use highway/marine safety flares under homemade hot air balloons or "store-boughten" helium balloons to create hoax UFOs, too. And these flares drip... different brands with presumably slightly different ingredients might drip more or less than others..

Videos of flares dropping hot material:

Source: https://youtu.be/kgp6H0-Z-zQ?t=147


Source: https://youtu.be/YQ2WZO9TB7Y?t=86


Account of one UFO hoax using roadside flares:

Two New Jersey men who staged a UFO hoax will have more earthly pursuits, such as picking up trash from the side of the road.

A judge fined Chris Russo, of Morris Plains, and Joe Rudy, of Chester Township, $250 each and ordered them to perform 50 hours of community service.

Authorities say the pair triggered a flurry of 911 calls when they lit road flares tied to helium balloons and released them in central New Jersey in January and February.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna30108135

 

[MapperGuy]

Is this perhaps a reaction to the oft-heard criticism "It can't go THAT fast in our atmosphere without leaving a heat signature"? This is one way to get ahead of that criticism. Of course, traveling across a galaxy only to burn up when you reach earth is a bone-headed mistake to make, and doesn't go with the advanced technological skills imputed to these ETs. And any aircraft that regularly ablated wouldn't be air-worthy for long. But I guess if you can invent characteristics, you can invent an answer for any little problems that arise...

It is part of UFO dogma that the ET's, however smart they may be and however advanced their technology may be, must in some way be inferior to us humans. It is also the basis of the plots of most "Earthlings versus the Flying Saucers" movies. There must be something that they do or don't do that will allow the earthlings to prevail by the time the credits are rolling. That ingenious plot gimmick that lets us foil their dastardly invasion plan.
It means that beliefs about UFO's and ET's do not have to be logically consistent. They are allowed to do things that don't make sense, indeed they are required to do so in some way.
We will never convince the UFO fans by saying "no rational alien would do that...".

 

[Trash-Panda]

It is part of UFO dogma that the ET's, however smart they may be and however advanced their technology may be, must in some way be inferior to us humans. It is also the basis of the plots of most "Earthlings versus the Flying Saucers" movies. There must be something that they do or don't do that will allow the earthlings to prevail by the time the credits are rolling. That ingenious plot gimmick that lets us foil their dastardly invasion plan.
It means that beliefs about UFO's and ET's do not have to be logically consistent. They are allowed to do things that don't make sense, indeed they are required to do so in some way.
We will never convince the UFO fans by saying "no rational alien would do that...".

This seems to go for most conspiratorial thinking. Like the moon landings, NASA could make this huge conspiracy involving thousands of people and build a massive soundstage but get obvious things wrong that only those who believe in the conspiracy think they can see it.

 

[Ann K]

This seems to go for most conspiratorial thinking. Like the moon landings, NASA could make this huge conspiracy involving thousands of people and build a massive soundstage but get obvious things wrong that only those who believe in the conspiracy think they can see it.

I saw an excellent example of this on Facebook just this morning. From Mauna Kea, Andrew McCarthy took this stunning picture of Saturn going behind the moon. The claim was promptly made (by someone who apparently doesn't know anything about photography) that this couldn't possibly be real because there were no stars visible.

 

[JMartJr]

The claim was promptly made (by someone who apparently doesn't know anything about photography) that this couldn't possibly be real because there were no stars visible.

Possibly a few ARE... although also possibly moons, or just artifacts?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

People - occasionally - have surprising reactions when looking through telescopes... back in the day when people actually looked through the eyepiece instead of staring at those godforsaken laptop screens.

At star parties, or when curious people come up when you're just out by yourself at Joshua Tree National Monument Park. It usually goes well. I liked it. Explaining... Showing people something they'd never seen before... It was usually a good time.

However, more than once people have accused me, or other people - including my Dad - of pulling a hoax. What these occasional folk saw with their own eyes in the telescope wasn't real. It's some kind of illuminated photo or model placed inside the telescope, you see. A hoax.

The images they see are surprising. That's true for anyone who hasn't looked through a large aperture telescope. Most folk take that in stride and have a positive reaction.

But these occasional folk... I suspect that because it's outside of their experience their ego rejects the notion that they don't know everything. And they have a paranoid personality style... You explain it to me.