Eight Raleighs

It is somewhat surprising that the media were so willing to run with it. I respect Ulis more than most of this group, I imagine, but this is essentially a self-taught hobbyist naming a long-deceased metallurgist as a suspect in the crime of the century, and the mainstream media (which I also respect more than most probably do) just took it at face value and ran with it. The Oregonian treated it like a scoop, getting "the drop" the day before Ulis's press conference. No one challenged him on his underlying conclusions regarding Rem-Cru and the science. Again, to reiterate: I think that Rem-Cru is a worthwhile lead and that Petersen is even a worthwhile "person of interest." The cat should have stayed in the bag longer, though, or, once, out, scrutinized more closely.

I agree that it likely means very little, if anything. And to take it a step further, I am personally not at all convinced that the tie originally belonged to Cooper. Nonetheless, I think it's a reasonable line of inquiry, but Ulis (and others) should guard against becoming zealots about their theories and suspects.

To be fair, Ulis has posted paperwork signed by Petersen on behalf of Rem-Cru that indicates he worked with ytrium and a couple of the other elements. I don't expect you to change your mind; just passing along information you may have missed. Whether that matters? I don't know enough about the industry at that (or any) time to even venture a guess. I suppose it incrementally/fractionally increases Peterson's viability as a suspect, i.e. moreseo than if it were not substantiated that he were exposed to some of the other elements.

I wonder if there would be patent denials if other companies were working with titanium-antimony in this ratio? (Since Rem-Cru would have already patented it. I'm a little confused as to how Sprague Electric was able to patent the same alloy.) I don't know much about the patenting process, but I think one would need to take a deep dive into the mechanics of that process in order to judge the veracity of Ulis's assertion.

There are a couple of things in your post to unpack a bit. First: I would definitely still like to hear Kaye's analysis regarding the titanium alloy straight from the horse's mouth. I don't doubt you - I'm simply a "trust, but verify" person. Second, I wish other scientists would provide analysis, other than Tom Kaye. I do not doubt his credentials, and his passion for the case along with his expertise has advanced it leaps and bounds the last few years. I also recognize that Discovery Channel isn't going to keep shelling out big piles of money to satiate the whims of a niche community of obsessives. But I'm a little uncomfortable that one person's unchecked, non-peer reviewed work is elevated to gospel status in the community. Tom Kaye seems to be a fine scientist, but he is not Moses. Finally, I am interested in your comment that "the ratio [of the purported alloy] is not exclusive to Rem Cru." This is in opposition to what Eric Ulis has stated. Are you aware of other patents for titanium antimony, in this ratio (or thereabouts)? Or are you speculating - as I did yesterday - that other shops were likely "fiddling" with it, but never took the step of patenting their work?

Got it. So titanium and antimony are both present in the particles, but they are not necessarily an alloy, but rather possibly one metal coated by another. Do you know where Kaye discusses this? I apologize for being a pestering newbie here on the topic, but the science is interesting and integral to conjecturing about whether the Rem-Cru lead is likely to be fruitful. (I do believe that if there is a possibility that the particles are residue of the alloy, then the Rem-Cru lead is a worthwhile pursuit. I probably would not have rushed to push "persons of interest" to the surface as quickly as is happening, but I also understand that this is a bit of a race here.)

Do you know where there is scientific analysis available regarding whether the titanium-antimony is or is not an alloy? What else might it be?

It appears to me that Ulis is doing honest work here and trying to advance the case, to the best of his ability and knowledge, and with the assistance of others who share his interest. I understand that this is a vocation for him, as well, but that would not make him the first person to turn an avocation into a vocation. You could look at it this way, as well, though: Much like there was a cost to the Republicans' successful overturn of Roe v. Wade, in that the party can no longer dangle it as a carrot to garner votes, there would be a cost to Ulis solving the Cooper case, in that there would be no more Cooper case. So it's difficult for me to say the Rem-Cru lead is just a grift on his part. It seems what would really be in his self-interest would be to continue to drag this out. I digress. Ultimately, I am far less interested in his or anyone else's motives (read: not interested at all, really), than I am about the hard science. I wish more scientists would weigh in and, of course, show their work for us, as well. Whether it's Ulis or people on this forum, there are a lot of conclusory statements being tossed around.

I have wondered whether there were labs working in these ratios that simply did not pursue or obtain a patent. But I don't know enough about the industry to understand the odds of that; in other words, I don't know enough about the industry to know whether there were shops where people were fiddling with combinations of metals, but would not have patented those combinations.

I am curious about where Kaye said this. Is there a YouTube video or web post? The science can get confusing (for me).

I am curious to know where and when Tom Kaye stated that he rejected the Rem-Cru connection on the basis that he is "not . . . convinced the titanium antimony particles are an alloy." I think that Eric Ulis is doing good work trying to pursue a lead, but I'm interested to hear from some scientific experts - not just Kaye, but others. Thank you.