Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Thanks for attending our lecture; hope you enjoyed it.
The carbon nanotubes (CNT) found in the implants appear to be small-diameter, single-walled variety (SWCNT), with diameters varying from approximately 0.5 nm to slightly over 1 nm (nm is nanometers; 1 billionth of a meter. One nanometer is about the width of 8 carbon atoms).
Semiconducting CNTs are probably used as the electronics of the device (small, fast, CNT electronics are a hot topic of Earthly research now), while metallic variety CNTs are probably used as the device wiring, due to their small size, and very high conductivity.
In the case of the Ron Noel implant (from Surgery #16), the extreme strength of carbon nanotubes was apparently used to strengthen the device, as it was so strong that even diamond tools would not cut it! The machine shop said it was the hardest stuff they had ever seen. The CNTs appeared to be much more evenly dispersed in this material than in the John Smith object, from Surgery #15.
The CNTs in the Ron Noel object appeared to be (nanometer size) individual nanotubes, while the John Smith object contained much larger inclusions of CNT bundles (micron sized; about 1000X larger). These relatively large inclusions acted as stress concentrations, and made the John Smith object brittle, which is why it broke up on removal.
As far as we know, CNTs do not occur in nature, which is part of the strange nature of these objects; I have also never heard of Halloysite Nanotubes. If you have more information on this type of nanotube, please let me know.
December 5, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Here are two links about “Naturally Occurring Nanotubes.
http://www.rdmag.com/News/2008/06/Naturally-occurring–nanotubes-may-protect-viruses-and-bacteria/
December 9, 2010 at 3:33 pmThere are a few articles talking about “naturally occurring carbon nanotubes”. My real question is there something about the nanotubes observed in the implants that rule out any possibility of “Naturally occurring carbon nanotubes?”
Here is a link speculating about the possibility of “natural occurring carbon nanotubes:
http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v3/n6/full/nnano.2008.139.html
December 9, 2010 at 6:25 pmOne last thought, could these be “graphite whiskers”? Graphite whiskers have been found in meteors.
http://www.understandingnano.com/carbon-nanotubes-manufacturing-space.html
December 10, 2010 at 6:53 amNo, it is highly unlikely these are graphite whiskers; they give the same Raman signature as small-diameter, single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) and bundle like SWCNT, as well.
December 11, 2010 at 11:47 amThe Halloysite nanotubes you mentioned are aluminosilicate nanotubes, rather than carbon nanotubes; there are many types of nanotubes besides carbon nanotubes.
Carbon nanotubes have generated all this excitement in the Materials Science research community because they have by far the best properties; CNTs have outstanding properties in several areas, such as electrical and thermal conductivity, potential for use as nanoelectronic components, and the highest strength and strength-to-mass ratio of any known class of materials.
The possibility of the carbon nanotubes observed in these objects being naturally ocurring cannot be completely ruled out, but is extremely unlikely for three reasons:
1) Carbon nanotubes have never been discovered in natural objects, to date,
2) The objects had many nanostructures, which have never been observed before in natural objects, to my knowledge, and
3) The objects were giving off radio signals, prior to removal.
Items 2 and 3 strongly indicate that these are manufactured devices, utilizing advanced nanotechnology.
Hi ,I just want to say thanks a lot for this interesting thread about Dr. Leir at the 2010 UFO Congress | Alien Scalpel! Regards, Zahn Ersatz
December 11, 2010 at 12:56 pmYes, thank you for your concise and strong statements. I like short, clear and strong statements and the last 3 points you made are short, clear and strong. Thank you.
In point 1 in your last response, you make the statement, “carbon nanotubes have never been discovered in natural objects, to date”.
I assume you are talking about natural objects in our solar system. Since the implants you are researching have been identified as objects Not from our solar system; can we also assume nanotubes Probably will not be found in objects from the solar system these implants come from?
Again, thank you for your great answers.
December 17, 2010 at 11:38 pmYou’re welcome!
I would say that it is possible that carbon nanotubes (CNTs) could form naturally, under very specific conditions, but they are probably extremely rare in nature, including in other solar systems. I must emphasize that they have never been found in nature, to date.
The CNTs in the implants appear to have been placed there deliberately, as part of a manufacturing process; their micro/nanostructures are too complex for them to be natural objects, and they have to have been devices, since they were emitting radio signals before removal.
I have 1 in my index finger right hand plus 1 in my right foot. I have had them as long as I can remember. I can pick up small magnets with the 1 in my hand.
April 9, 2011 at 8:25 amWe have seen implants that magnets stick to before; they are really awesome. Please get them X-rayed; we would be very interested in seeing the images.
April 10, 2011 at 9:55 am
In the late 1980′s while living in Winchester, Ky temporarily I believe that I was implanted at that time. What I thought was a dream about ET’s
was not a dream but reality. I have yet to have the implant behind my right ear x-rayed. The area is so sensitive that I don’t like to touch it. My ear continually rings.
When you get it X-rayed, please let us know how it turns out. By the way, tinnitus (ringing in the ears) is VERY common in alien abductees.
August 3, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Ringing in the ears is a symptom that most alien abductees have, but it does not necessarily mean that an implant is present. If you want to get an area of your body X-rayed, you should consult with your doctor and get it done at a medical X-ray facility in your area.
August 13, 2011 at 11:50 am
Dr. Leir spoke at the Irvine conf.and said these objects are of a type of ISOTOPE signature that indicated a far-flug (1/3 the distance across our galaxy)distance as it’s source.
October 1, 2011 at 1:07 pmYes, I did the analysis of these implants, and the very skewed isotopic ratios of elements in the implants indicates that the materials in them either came from somewhere across the galaxy, or have been exposed to a very high flux of nuclear radiation. Either way, the materials which compose these implants are not “normal” Earthly ones.
October 2, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Has any of the results/conclusions regarding the removed implants ever appeared in a peer reviewed journal?
January 11, 2012 at 10:36 pmWe have tried to publish our results, most recently in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. We wrote up an abridged version of my report on the object removed during Surgery #15 (the “John Smith” object), left out all references to its probable alien origin, and just published the data, saying that it was a highly unusual object that was found in the human body, which did not trigger an immune response.
Even with this format, the reviewers were overly skeptical, came up with what appeared to be trumped-up, illogical, arguments against publication, and said that people would not be interested. Why other scientists would NOT be interested in this material is hard to fathom, unless there is a political agenda at work.
I have to conclude that the current “peer review” process is a form of censorship, which is there to keep results which touch on “forbidden” subjects (e.g. UFOs, aliens, cold fusion, zero point/free energy devices, psychic phenomena) out of the scientific literature. I have heard similar stories of rejections of interesting papers on these subjects, even when written by prominent scientists. I am going to submit the paper again soon, to a different journal; please wish us luck!
I wondered, if you know what frequency these implants transmit, is it possible to monitor or transmit a “MSG” ? Also, are these implants receivers as well, and could that be monitored?
Lastly, would it be possible to monitor these transmissions using the equipment of the group who monitor the solar system for life (SETI ?)
Thank you!
Yes, we have detected several frequencies that the implants transmit on (see my paper on the “John Smith” implant, from surgery #15), including ELF, megahertz, and gigahertz (microwave) signals. Two of them turned out to be aerospace and satellite communications frequencies.
We do not know for sure that the implants are receivers, but it is a logical assumption, and we certainly have data that strongly suggests that they are, such as the fact that they often abruptly stop transmitting when the signals from them are detected. This behavior strongly suggests that they turn themselves off in response to a received signal.
Yes, I think it may be possible to monitor for these signals to and from the implants using SETI equipment, but whether they would ever consent to that is a very large question.
We also have reason to believe that these implants are transmitting scalar radio, rather than ordinary transverse, radio waves, and that we are simply detecting the transverse wave “bleedover” from the scalar signal. If this is the case, then certain modifications (such as a spherical, capacitive, antenna) to the receiving equipment would be necessary to detect these implant signals at maximum efficiency. The transverse signals we are detecting are only a few milliwatts, but if the main signal is scalar, the total signal strength could be several orders of magnitude stronger than this, and would have a very long range.
I was not able to attend the conference in the Bay Area, but I did attend your lecture in Ventura.
During the lecture, a lot of attention was placed on the nanotubes found in the implant. How do these nanotubes differ from “naturally occurring nanotubes” such as Halloysite Nanotubes?
December 2, 2010 at 7:42 pm