UFO Sample Secrets Revealed: Inside 8 Famous Cases

November 7, 2026

UAP materials researcher Jarod Yates reviews eight famous UFO samples: Art’s Parts, Llanilar, Maury Island, Frank Kimbler’s Roswell Skip Site material, Dalnegorsk, the Buga Sphere, San Augustin, and Ubatuba. With Art’s Parts as the centerpiece, he explores what microscopy, elemental analysis, and isotope testing reveal about their composition, unusual structures, and possible engineering significance.

From Propulsion Research to Physical Evidence

Yates didn’t enter this field intending to become a collector of crash stories. His background in U.S. Air Force avionics, radar, and electronic warfare brought him into the Alternative Propulsion Engineering Conference, where researchers were exploring ways to move through space without conventional rocket exhaust. Studying material associated with reported UAP encounters offered another approach. Rather than working entirely from theoretical propulsion concepts, he wanted to examine objects that might contain clues to an unfamiliar technology.

That effort has grown into a comparison list containing approximately 45 reported samples and material claims. For our interview, we selected eight: Art’s Parts, Llanilar, Maury Island, Frank Kimbler’s Roswell Skip/Bounce Site material, Dalnegorsk, the Buga Sphere, San Augustin, and Ubatuba. They represent different kinds of investigations. Some involve Yates’s direct microscopy, others involve collaborators’ laboratory work, and others depend on historical reports and published analyses. He hasn’t personally tested everything on the list, and he doesn’t consider every specimen equally promising.

Art’s Parts is the centerpiece. Yates describes an original group of six pieces, two of which went to researcher Linda Moulton Howe. One was secured in a lockbox; the other supplied smaller fragments that circulated among researchers after the material entered public discussion in 1996. He identifies the Falcon Space specimen as one of those smaller pieces. Establishing that relationship matters: results from different laboratories become more useful when researchers can determine whether they’re examining fragments of the same parent material.

I participated in the early optical investigation with Yates and Mark Sokol, photographing the specimen as we explored its surfaces. Subsequent work moved through metallurgical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, elemental analysis, transmission electron microscopy, and university radiation-laboratory testing. Sokol also took the specimen to a Bruker laboratory, where Yates says elemental comparisons supported its identification with the original Art’s Parts material. The investigation gradually became less about whether the fragment looked strange and more about what its individual structures were made of.

Art’s Parts: Whiskers, Microspheres, and Layered Metal

The first striking feature was the contrast between its two faces. Yates describes one side as bright, reflective magnesium and the other as darker, iridescent bismuth-bearing material. The edge revealed layering, while small spheres on the darker surface appeared to respond differently under changing illumination. Their arrangement caught his attention. An isolated reflective particle might not have justified much interest, but apparent geometric groupings suggested locations worth examining at higher resolution.

Metallurgical microscopy revealed slender whisker-like structures approximately 1 micron wide, with the longest approaching 100 microns. Yates compared that width with a human hair approximately 70 microns across. Some whiskers appeared to radiate from common starting points, creating a branching or stubble-like texture. Other Art’s Parts fragments showed shorter features he identified as zinc whiskers: approximately 5 microns long and 1 micron across, with a squarer appearance. The distinction gave him two populations of structures to compare, not simply a generally rough surface.

Yates interprets those whiskers as possible evidence of extended electrical exposure, but he doesn’t assign that exposure exclusively to an unknown vehicle. The material has undergone decades of experiments. He points to a reported million-volt Van de Graaff generator test in 1996, along with subsequent investigations, as possible influences on its present condition. That creates a materials-history problem: a structure observed today might reflect the original manufacturing process, environmental exposure, or something that happened after the specimen entered a laboratory.

Scanning electron microscopy brought the small spheres into sharper focus. Yates describes some as hollow, with expanded or ruptured shells, and proposes that they could be remnants of a thermal process. Localized elemental analysis lets the researchers compare the shells, their interiors, and nearby material rather than relying on appearance alone. His working question is whether the shapes and chemical distributions tell a consistent story about formation. The spheres are observable features; their role in a proposed operating mechanism remains an interpretation to investigate.

A Buried Bow-Tie—and a Waveguide That Didn’t Hold Up

The transmission electron microscope image Yates unveiled during our interview shows a particularly provocative structure approximately 3 microns inside the magnesium layer. He describes an inverted, five-sided house shape associated with an arrowhead-like feature. The two parts aren’t equal in size: he reports an approximately four-to-three relationship. Their geometry reminded him of an asymmetric antenna structure, leading him to interpret the feature as a possible bow-tie resonator rather than an ordinary arrangement of grains.

His argument is based on the relationship between geometry and electromagnetic behavior. Yates says the asymmetry resembles a known antenna configuration that selects particular frequency modes, and he believes its apparent tuning overlaps properties of the surrounding material. He finds the location especially interesting because the structure appears embedded within the specimen rather than patterned on an exposed surface. For now, however, the image establishes a shape and location. The interview doesn’t present a measured frequency-response curve demonstrating that the feature functions as an antenna.

That hypothesis is distinct from the older suggestion that Art’s Parts contains a continuous bismuth waveguide. Here, Yates credits the AARO-commissioned Oak Ridge investigation with an important contribution. He says its results showed that the bismuth-bearing region wasn’t a continuous sheet: it consisted of separated bismuth and bismuth-lead droplets. He accepts that this undermines the particular waveguide interpretation under discussion. Having the right element in a sample isn’t enough when the proposed function also requires a specific, continuous geometry.

Yates also draws attention to differences in zinc content between magnesium layers. In his description, one pair of layers can contain comparatively more zinc while another contains less. That shifts the investigation away from treating Art’s Parts as a single bulk alloy recipe. The distribution of constituents may be as informative as their presence. His interest is in which elements occur together, how they vary across interfaces, and whether any recurring arrangement corresponds to a recognizable manufacturing process or functional structure.

Neutrons, X-Rays, and an Unexpected Activation Plateau

The investigation reached a different analytical scale when Dr. Matthew Szydagis worked with the team at the University at Albany. The neutron activation experiments examined the specimen’s induced radioactivity after exposure, using the resulting signals and their decay to investigate its constituents. The initial exposure discussed in the interview lasted four hours on a californium source. I photographed the work during our visit. It was conducted within the university laboratory, with the controls and expertise required for handling radioactive sources.

Yates says the team subsequently exposed the specimen to a different, plutonium-based source for approximately a month. Afterward, its residual activity appeared comparable to the result from the initial four-hour exposure. They then returned it to the californium source for a period of weeks. Again, he reports that the measured activity didn’t increase as expected. His interpretation was that the sample had reached an apparent activation plateau much earlier than anticipated.

That result led us to discuss whether the material might interact with radiation in an unusual way, possibly through absorption or reflection. Yates was careful not to turn the observation into a demonstrated shielding specification. He acknowledged that a conventional explanation could account for it and said interpretation awaited Szydagis’s publication of the experiments. Exposure duration alone doesn’t settle the comparison: the interview doesn’t supply neutron flux, numerical count rates, or matching post-exposure measurement times. What it documents is the team’s unexpected observation and the question it raised.

X-ray fluorescence provided another elemental cross-check. Yates describes XRF as complementing the activation work by examining the specimen with energetic photons, and he says its results supported earlier elemental measurements. During the interview, he also corrected an important detail in our imagery: the laptop plot displayed on the XRF slide appeared to show the initial four-hour NAA measurement, not an XRF spectrum. The team had used both techniques, but the photograph shouldn’t be treated as interchangeable evidence for either one.

Llanilar: Honeycomb Geometry Meets Aerospace Documentation

The Llanilar fragment, associated with the reported 1983 incident in Wales, presents a very different identification problem. Instead of a compact metallic chip, it has a conspicuous honeycomb-like construction with fiberglass. Sokol received a specimen, and Yates began by combining basic examination with historical research. Its regular cellular structure immediately suggested that dimensions and constituent materials might be more useful than the dramatic story attached to its recovery.

Yates investigated the reported location, timing, and surrounding aviation activity. In his reconstruction, the site lay between a radar facility associated with stealth-aircraft tracking and a flight-testing area. He then looked for engineering documents that could connect a known construction method with the fragment. The point wasn’t simply to declare it “aircraft material.” It was to narrow the comparison using the combination of fibers, cell geometry, and the circumstances in which the object was reportedly found.

His preferred comparison in the interview was the F-117. Yates says a document he located described fiberglass and hexagonal cell dimensions that matched the Llanilar specimen closely. He didn’t quote the numerical cell dimensions during our conversation, but he emphasized the agreement between the geometry and the specified material. That combination is more informative than honeycomb construction alone: two objects can share a general cellular appearance while differing in cell size, reinforcement, or the materials joining the structure.

He stops short of identifying a particular aircraft or reconstructing a specific loss. The fragment could have come from another aerospace platform, including a satellite, and he leaves those possibilities open. His conclusion is that it resembles a known class of human-engineered construction rather than something requiring an unfamiliar manufacturing capability. Llanilar illustrates a productive outcome for this work: microscopy and documentary research can make an object less mysterious by making the identification question more precise.

Maury Island: A Porous Specimen Awaiting Its Chemical Identity

The specimen supplied to Sokol as Maury Island material stands out because of its texture and apparent lightness. Yates describes it as porous and metal-foam-like, unlike the denser lumps of melted material often associated with the case. His comparison with aerogel communicates how unexpectedly light it felt, although it isn’t a measured density. In later photographs, I asked whether its almost furry-looking surface might be “angel hair.” Yates rejected that identification, comparing the specimen instead with lightweight, volcanic-slag-like material.

Its connection to the reported 1947 incident near Seattle is a separate issue. Yates distinguishes pieces allegedly recovered close to the original event from fragments collected on nearby beaches decades later. A later beach find can genuinely come from the relevant location without being demonstrably connected to the reported object. That distinction is especially important when several physically different materials circulate under one case name. “Maury Island” identifies an association, not a single established chemical composition.

At the time of our interview, Yates said the team hadn’t completed elemental analysis or examined this particular fragment under the metallurgical microscope. Its structure justified interest, but its analytical identity was still largely unresolved. He proposed SEM and EDS as the next useful combination: closer imaging to characterize the porous structure, followed by elemental measurements to determine what the material actually contains. Neither a measured porosity nor a quantitative composition was available in the discussion.

Yates uses elemental complexity as one screening criterion. He says some of the specimens he finds most interesting contain more than 30 detectable elements, and he wants to know whether the Maury Island fragment belongs in that category. That would be a starting point rather than an engineering conclusion. An inventory still has to be connected to concentrations and spatial relationships before it can explain a structure. Here, even that first chemical inventory remained work to be done.

Roswell’s Skip Site: When the Laboratory Finds Something Ordinary

Frank Kimbler’s Roswell Skip/Bounce Site specimens bring the investigation back to field collection. Repeated searches have produced multiple metallic fragments, but each piece requires its own assessment. In our discussion, I credited Michael Perrone for undertaking the SEM work on the particular specimen we showed. Kimbler supplied the recovery effort; Perrone contributed access to detailed imaging. Those are different parts of the investigation, and neither a famous location nor an impressive microscope predetermines the result.

For this fragment, Yates’s interpretation was notably conventional. He recalled that it looked a great deal like an aluminum can. Other pieces recovered from the broader area, he said, resembled ordinary aircraft, automobile, or beverage-container material. Those were comparisons, not a certified alloy identification presented during the interview. His assessment was that some fragments looked more like unrelated debris than something with a distinctive structure worth pursuing as unfamiliar technology.

The distinction between a recovery site and an individual specimen matters. A location can have a long history of reported events while also accumulating ordinary material. Finding metal there doesn’t establish when it arrived or what produced it. That makes contextual information—where a fragment was found, how it was recovered, and what happened to it afterward—part of the technical problem. Laboratory characterization can describe the object being examined, but it can’t automatically supply the missing history.

Yates was emphatic that an ordinary result doesn’t diminish Kimbler’s work. Searching, collecting, and submitting material means accepting that some pieces won’t support the hoped-for explanation. Those outcomes still help sort a collection and direct limited laboratory resources toward more promising specimens. A useful investigation needs the ability to identify commonplace material, not just the ability to produce intriguing images. The Roswell fragment demonstrates that this research can end with a mundane answer for a particular object.

Dalnegorsk: Gold Wires, Quartz Cladding, and a Possible Connection

Dalnegorsk, associated with the 1986 Height 611 incident in the Soviet Union, provides Yates’s strongest comparison with Art’s Parts. His work draws on historical photographs, reports, and a German-language account he translated. The materials illustrated include metallic droplets, gold-colored pieces, and fine structures that he believes warrant comparison with the Falcon Space specimen. This is partly a documentary investigation, rather than an identical set of hands-on tests performed on both collections.

The feature he emphasizes is a fine gold core surrounded by quartz-like cladding. He compares it with a coaxial cable: a central conductor enclosed by another material. In the interview, he discusses wires approximately 1 micron wide and says he found a similarly dimensioned gold-and-quartz structure on Art’s Parts. The proposed connection combines composition and geometry. It’s more specific than saying two specimens contain gold, although the interview doesn’t establish that the structures came from the same source or manufacturing process.

Yates also challenges the assumption that a very small structure must have been impossible to manufacture historically. His review found that quartz-coated fine gold wires could be produced as far back as the 1920s. What interests him, therefore, isn’t small size by itself. It’s the claimed recurrence of comparable dimensions and materials in different collections. He also points to similar gold flakes and says Art’s Parts and Dalnegorsk show unusually strong elemental overlap within his roughly 45-entry comparison list.

Another proposed connection involves metallic droplets. Yates says the bismuth-lead proportions reported in the Oak Ridge work reminded him of a low-melting solder composition. That prompted him to question whether some Dalnegorsk droplets described as lead might also contain bismuth. It’s a testable comparison, not a completed identification. The investigation becomes more useful when “these objects look alike” turns into a specific question about a wire’s cladding, a droplet’s constituents, or the composition of an interface.

Buga: Separating the Famous Sphere from the One Examined

The Buga Sphere’s patterned exterior made it difficult to omit from our discussion of prominent UAP-material cases. But the most consequential detail in this part of the interview was a distinction between objects. The sphere Sokol traveled to Mexico City to examine was not Buga. Yates identifies it as a separate object called the Baldea sphere, recovered afterward. Observations from that investigation shouldn’t be transferred to Buga merely because both objects appeared in the same public conversation.

According to Yates, the Baldea sphere contained black epoxy and had already been cut apart and welded back together. Those conditions disappointed him and complicated interpretation of its interior. An investigator examining a modified object has to determine which features belong to its original construction and which reflect later work. Yates’s account describes the condition of the specific sphere his collaborator inspected. It doesn’t establish that the Buga Sphere has the same interior or modification history.

He was also unconvinced that Buga’s exterior markings required unusual fabrication. The crescent-like shapes reminded him of patterns obtainable through chemical etching of aluminum. By his estimate, comparable decorative effects could be produced with inexpensive materials. That observation doesn’t identify the sphere’s maker or establish its entire history, but it narrows the significance of the markings. An elaborate-looking surface isn’t necessarily evidence of an advanced manufacturing process.

Yates doesn’t extend that skepticism to every historical sphere report. He believes some other cases remain worth investigating. His position is specimen-specific: the object Sokol examined didn’t meet his expectations, while the appearance of the Buga Sphere didn’t, on its own, supply an engineering mystery. The practical questions remain the same as for less spectacular fragments—what is it made of, how was it assembled, what has been changed, and which measurements belong to that exact object?

San Augustin: Cooling Tests, Thin Sections, and Elemental Inventories

The San Augustin material supplied through Steve Colbern produced another mixed assessment. Yates credits Colbern with obtaining ICP-MS testing on five specimens and describes some of the resulting elemental inventories as sufficiently interesting to justify further investigation. But he separates chemical complexity from recognizable technology. Knowing which elements occur in a fragment doesn’t necessarily reveal which compounds they form, how they’re distributed, or whether their arrangement performs a useful function.

One experiment investigated whether a cooled specimen might display behavior suggestive of superconductivity. The team cooled a piece with liquid nitrogen and observed its interaction with a strong magnet. They were looking for flux pinning. Instead, Yates recalls a very slight slowing that he associated with eddy currents—an effect so small that the researchers weren’t certain they were seeing what they thought they saw. The experiment didn’t produce a convincing superconducting result, and the interview supplied no measured transition temperature or resistance data.

The microscopy work included preparing a lamella, a thin section taken from the specimen, for TEM examination. That gave the team a way to look inside a selected region rather than relying only on the outer surface or a bulk elemental inventory. The two approaches answer different questions. ICP-MS can supply extensive compositional information, while a selected internal section can reveal how features are arranged locally. Yates’s interest was whether that closer view exposed structures he could interpret as microtechnology or nanotechnology.

He also distinguished among individual San Augustin fragments. One hexagonally cut aluminum piece with orange epoxy around its edges appeared to have a conventional explanation, while other shapes retained more interest. The case can’t be reduced to a single verdict covering every piece. His overall assessment is that some material warrants more investigation, but the available results haven’t revealed the kind of organized technological structure he would need before proposing that engineers could reproduce something from it.

Ubatuba: High-Purity Magnesium with a Long Laboratory History

Ubatuba adds a much older specimen and a substantial published testing history. The 2022 paper supplied for this discussion, by Robert Powell, Michael Swords, Mark Rodeghier, and Phyllis Budinger, traces the material to three fragments delivered to a Rio de Janeiro newspaper in September 1957. Olavo Fontes arranged early testing before transferring specimens to Coral Lorenzen of the Aerial Phenomenon Research Organization. In 1987, Lorenzen transferred material to Peter Sturrock, who later supplied the fragment used in the authors’ investigation. The paper distinguishes that custody history from proof of the original aerial-event story.

Early purity claims changed as instrumentation improved. Brazilian testing in 1957 detected no trace constituents with the equipment then available, giving rise to claims of completely pure magnesium. The paper explains that the material wasn’t actually free of impurities. Oak Ridge analysis in 1958 reported approximately 99.8% magnesium, while Dow Chemical’s 1961 work reported 99.98%. Neutron activation testing in 1968 reported approximately 99.9%, with strontium at 500 parts per million, barium at 160 parts per million, and zinc at 500 parts per million.

By 1997, laser-ablation ICP-MS testing arranged by Sturrock detected 37 trace elements. The authors note that finding many constituents at parts-per-billion concentrations isn’t inherently extraordinary. More informative is the particular composition and its historical context. Their concluding description gives approximately 99.88% magnesium with traces of strontium, barium, zinc, and copper. Strontium remained especially interesting: the paper describes its presence as unusual for magnesium manufacture at the time, while also acknowledging that Dow had experimented with adding it.

Yates hasn’t personally examined Ubatuba. His contribution is a separate hypothesis connecting its magnesium-rich composition with Art’s Parts and Dalnegorsk. He wonders whether a material depleted of zinc during a thermal process could leave a residue resembling Ubatuba. That idea extends his interpretation of the hollow and ruptured microspheres in Art’s Parts. It isn’t a conversion he’s demonstrated experimentally. It supplies a proposed relationship that could be investigated, rather than an established common origin.

Ubatuba’s Isotopes: Where the Numbers Become More Difficult

The modern Ubatuba work offers a detailed look at what testing such a hypothesis demands. Cerium Laboratories in Austin used a Thermo Finnigan Element2 high-resolution inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer. The study reports removing a 50-angstrom surface layer to reduce contamination, then dissolving a 5.70-milligram portion in 1% ultrapure nitric acid at 22 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes. The instrument was calibrated with NIST-traceable standards. These preparation details matter because the investigation was attempting to compare small differences in isotope abundance, not merely identify the dominant metal.

The magnesium solution was diluted 10,000 to 1, while solutions used to examine strontium, copper, zinc, and barium were diluted 100 to 1. Magnesium’s overwhelming concentration required a different measurement range from the trace constituents. In the 2017 results, the Austin laboratory reported magnesium-26 at 10.58%, compared with a nominal abundance of 11.01%. No measurement uncertainty accompanied that result, so the authors couldn’t determine from it alone whether the deviation represented a meaningful anomaly.

A second laboratory, ICP and ICP-MS Services in Cleveland, examined the same prepared solutions using a Thermo Scientific iCAP-Q instrument. Its 2018 results included measurement uncertainty. The authors found that the Cleveland magnesium isotope ratios followed the terrestrial comparison trend, whereas the Austin result did not, leading them to suspect a measurement problem in the earlier analysis. Trace-element results also disagreed. Austin reported strontium-84 at 0.74%; Cleveland reported 0.53%, with a stated standard deviation of 0.01%, against a nominal reference of 0.56%.

The study therefore didn’t establish a reproducible non-terrestrial trace-isotope signature. Its authors identified a practical obstacle: magnesium concentrations were approximately three orders of magnitude higher than those of the trace metals, potentially compromising the latter measurements. They recommended chemically separating the trace constituents and using multicollector ICP-MS for further work. Ubatuba remains interesting because of its history and composition, but its strongest technical lesson is about measurement quality. An apparent isotope anomaly becomes persuasive only when the analysis can distinguish a real difference from an instrumental one.

From an Intriguing Image to a Working Engineering Result

Near the end of our conversation, Yates returned to Art’s Parts with another observation. While selecting a location for a new TEM section, he found a gold-bearing surface feature with a three-pointed shape and small cupped forms near its center. He thought it resembled an electrical contact. Its location added to his interest: it lay close to the reported gold-and-quartz wire. Another section was taken for examination, but he wasn’t yet ready to present the resulting analysis in full.

His broader list also includes material claims beyond our eight main cases. He mentioned an unnamed third sample group that he believes resembles Art’s Parts and Dalnegorsk, but didn’t identify it. Historical angel-hair reports and alleged implants came up as additional avenues rather than completed specimen investigations presented in this interview. Yates’s list isn’t comprehensive, and its entries aren’t all equally documented. Its purpose is to expose possible comparisons and help decide which objects, structures, or chemical signatures deserve closer examination.

Access remains a practical constraint. Yates says he’s interested in additional specimens with meaningful provenance, provided their owners are willing to let them leave their possession for testing. The work depends on a network of people supplying different resources: recovered material, historical records, microscope access, radiation-laboratory expertise, elemental measurements, and time. Across the cases we discussed, collaboration made it possible to move beyond a photograph toward more discriminating tests—even when those tests produced an ordinary or inconclusive result.

The fragment on the penny brings that sprawling effort back to something tangible. There’s a surface to examine, an internal section to prepare, a composition to measure, and a proposed function to test. Yates remains open to extraordinary possibilities, but he also says of Art’s Parts, “Right now, all signs point to Earth.” The engineering question survives either outcome. Find a real property, establish how it works, and determine whether it can be reproduced. That’s where an intriguing specimen could become more than a story.

References

Primary sources for the feature

- - UFO Sample Secrets Revealed! | Jarod Yates — Tim Ventura’s interview with Jarod Yates. The primary source for the eight-case review, Yates’s firsthand observations, and his interpretations of the microscopy and laboratory results.
  - Isotope Ratios and Chemical Analysis of the 1957 Brazilian Ubatuba Fragment — Robert M. Powell, Michael Swords, Mark Rodeghier, and Phyllis Budinger. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 36(1), 39–48, 2022. The source for the Ubatuba composition, sample preparation, isotope measurements, laboratory comparisons, and recommendations for further testing.

Researcher backgrounds

- - Jarod Yates — Flux Space’s biographical profile, covering Yates’s Air Force avionics background, physics studies, propulsion research, and involvement in Art’s Parts analysis.
  - Matthew Szydagis — University at Albany faculty profile, documenting his experimental-physics background and research interests in detector development, neutron activation, and UAP.

Art’s Parts and laboratory testing

- - Art’s Parts: Initial Microscope Analysis — APEC’s documentation of the initial examination by Mark Sokol and Jarod Yates, including optical observations and the stated provenance of the Falcon Space specimen.
  - Art’s Parts: Metallurgical Microscope Analysis — Jarod Yates’s presentation of metallurgical microscope imagery and the sample’s fine surface structures.
  - Art’s Parts 1: UFO Crash Recovery Material Analysis — Jarod Yates’s overview of the specimen’s reported history, earlier investigations, and materials-analysis questions.
  - Art’s Parts 2: UFO Crash Recovery SEM & Materials Analysis — Jarod Yates’s presentation on continued examination of the Falcon Space specimen, including electron microscopy and compositional analysis.
  - Art’s Parts 3: UFO Crash Recovery Terahertz & Quasicrystals — Jarod Yates’s presentation discussing further Art’s Parts analysis, proposed structural interpretations, and comparisons with other purported UAP materials.
  - Art’s Part III: THz Metamaterial — Research discussion posted by u/MYTbrain on Reddit, with links to the presentation and Szydagis’s testing discussion. Summarizes proposed terahertz-related structures and comparisons with Dalnegorsk and Ubatuba.
  - Synopsis: Analysis of a Metallic Specimen — Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2024. The official technical synopsis covering microscopy, elemental composition, isotope measurements, and evaluation of the proposed bismuth-based terahertz waveguide.
  - Supplement to Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Analysis of a Metallic Specimen — All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, July 2024. Adds historical magnesium-alloy manufacturing context and explains AARO’s interpretation of the Oak Ridge findings.