“According to the authors of the study of the Feroxite Meteorites, the material was collated and complied hesitantly in June of 1944 by a Swiss and German Scientific duo (of accidental meeting and of very dubious time frame-June of 44- signalling the end of the war and doubtful scientific productivity on matters non-weaponized).”
Initial Conclusion and Obfuscate Formation of Scientific Observation of the Original Feroxite Reports and Notes on the Formal Criticisms of the IEMS Program.
According to the authors of the study of the Feroxite Meteorites, the material was collated and complied hesitantly in June of 1944 by a Swiss and German Scientific duo (of accidental meeting and of very dubious time frame-June of 44- signalling the end of the war and doubtful scientific productivity on matters non-weaponized). The meteorites were found in an Alpine landslide triggered by an alleged tectonic shift of which little to no record could be found in geological records. According to the original report manufactured in the 1970s, the discovery dates of the founding of the original archive by a Dr. Rudolph H. Obrist and the subsequent studies to determine the properties of the meteorites thought to be of foreign extraterrestrial extraction or propulsion concluded a number of significant conclusions that led to a post-millennial new space race to Mars and its inter-orbiter tract. The reported target capacity of meteorite origin (calculated by a number of ingenious and exploratory scientific tests funded publicly by multi-national, non-militarized standard) concluded, among many useful results that the NEOP scale gas compression weight measurement and obfuscate scale layering microscopy, a number of helpful scientific instrumentations of molecular base in which determinations of extraterrestrial origin would otherwise be incredibly helpful. The original significance of the find by German geologist Alfred Gottlob Werner and Swiss researcher Louis Hagen bears little weight to the scientific conclusions set in motion some three decades later. The origin of said meteorites and geographic locations in which they have been suggested to have been found bear little enmity to conclusions produces by IEMS and Dr. Obrist. That the find is called into question is sympathetic to a number of theories from which the IEMS program was developed is significant, but the ir-retractable content of fraudulent speculation about the meteorite composition, not its origin of geography is the more damning of all contra-evidence collated for peer review.
In short historical order, the significance of the original find would facilitate the budding aeronautics project aimed at a peace-time intervention between international communities, notably the U.S.S.R and the United States, the latter led by one Dwight Müeller of dubious scientific background. His role was created for the dissemination of Big Data in direct regards to the aeronautical pursuit of Mars from which it has been established that the meteorites may have originated from. The program entitled IEMS or International Exploration of Mars and Surroundings was launched as civilian, non-militarized vehicle to study possible affects of meteor deposits among another corollary relevant signatures regarding the planet Mars and its correlation to Earth and its geology.
It should be first proposed that skepticism abounds regarding the program, its origins, but also its revelatory interest in outcomes of scientific data. First, and notably the most arguable case, aside from the specious names of the original scientists, whom little record is accorded to and which is subsequently written off blindly as a war-time casualty of information lost are the organizational parameters for which the project was funded and distributed to an international community during “peace-time” efforts during a very Cold War between two of the largest countries on earth-the perverse nature of which bears all the hallmarks of a technological cornucopia of multi-national humanist “sharing” and retrospectively may or may not be regarded as pure fantasy with underlying and ulterior motivations such colonization of Mars and its surrounding environs. The meteorites and the Ferox archive itself are not the question therefore, but rather the founding stone or impetus in which further more complex multi-national pressures to secure groundwork in space were used as a schema for duplicitous advancement under the guise of progress for humanity.
There are further historic considerations in overview to examine as regards to the “Space Rush” that followed WWII. Notably, most leading scientists of the period “emigrated” to the United States from Germany, Austria and Other occupying countries following the war in a program entitled “Operation Paperclip” Among the finest of Germanic minds associated with this transfer of brain power from Germany to America, was one Werner Von Braun, the eminent Nazi aerospace engineer who went on to help set JPL or Jet Propulsion Laboratories (California, then Florida) in motion with a slough of other notable scientists in America such as Jack Parsons (Also hereby committed to the annals of history for his involvement in occult matters and for the dubious manner of his death in which he was blown up inside his garage), Enrico Fermi, and Nils Bohr. Neither of the few names that I have mentioned is known to have worked on or given thoughts on the project that would later become IEMS. In the case of Parson, it is highly likely his death may have occurred ahead of that possibility, but Von Braun would certainly have known and been briefed on the exacting measure of the meteorites and their possible significance to which his biographies make no reference, nor is he referenced in the project itself in regards to the appropriation of scientific data in which the propulsion experiments with the IEMS program would otherwise have been impossible. In fact, one of the most striking absences within the original report and construction of the IEMS programs is the distinct lack of detail about histories, technological innovations and the financial data. Further reports suggesting tentative scientist extraction from these countries, of which several severely long lists for potential use were compiled, fail to indicate either Werner or Hagen as possible candidates to the Operation Paperclip program. This does not mitigate the impossible, but does suggest again, along with the date of discovery, a careful re-investigation into the archive found by Obrist and to the use for which it would lead by proxy of humanist intervention into space, the IEMS team and the resulting exploratory missions to Mars and its environment.
If exacting parties of scientific inquiry were to expand their investigation into the stated origin of both IEMS and its founding characters, the search would have to be more invasive than the ability of this author and several others. Cloak and dagger resourcing and terms of secrecy are to be expected in technological pursuits, even if “civilian” in delineation. However, the complete lack of historical credulity offers reasons for biased skepticism to continue unabated. Further questions remain at present not only to the possibility of historical subterfuge and inconsistent loopholes and the potential for forged documents in the original report, but also whether or not the data of later experiments would be as universal as suggested by the original aims of the IEMS founding. At present, there remain unanswered questions into the current address of the program, but also the documents, notably the potential for fabrication of these particulars in convening research. The aim of this inquiry is not to provide a scientific analysis in full detail of the results gathered by IEMS, but rather to draw attention to a number of inconsistencies that subordinate the original mission statement of IEMS based on observable and questionable scientific data in its reports to secure passive acceptance for its programming from the international community based on potentially falsified renderings of observable scientific and illustrative data represented by IEMS and Obrist.
“Further reports suggesting tentative scientist extraction from these countries, of which several severely long lists for potential use were compiled, fail to indicate either Werner or Hagen as possible candidates to the Operation Paperclip program. This does not mitigate the impossible, but does suggest again, along with the date of discovery, a careful re-investigation into the archive found by Obrist and to the use for which it would lead by proxy of humanist intervention into space, the IEMS team and the resulting exploratory missions to Mars and its environment”.
Leopold Data Inc. Observations and Notations on the X-13 Technologies and the Disingenuous use of Copper Elemental retrofitted to Fuselage from Misappropriated Origins.
Moving forward to the 21st century, IEMS began a series of unmanned explorations to the explore “Ferox”, the third moon of Mars in an attempt to substantiate extraterrestrial corroboration of the original meteorites allegedly deposited in the Swiss Alps. Various contracts for the technological innovations needed to issue such an expedition were publicly awarded to several companies, all of a non-military supply chain in which cogent records were found, though umbrella corporate interests suggests that their status as non-militarized is dubious if not altogether untrue. For example, the computers situated along the fuselage, the first of its kind to be tempered as an external cladding was bid for and won by North American Aviation on November 2nd, 2002. The official nomenclature for the program has listed that 14 test flights of the “X-13”(A hypersonic research satellite) were made between 2000-2004, leaving one to speculate as to the issuance of contracts of non-militarized order and the dates of which they were created. It is being suggested in official records that these 14 test flights occurred before the inconvenient dates listed for the awarding of the contracts to build the same vehicle. One can speculate that the hallmarks of deceit are within the conflation of the dates to the manufacturing codes of non-militarized engineering suggesting a disorder of information congratulations anticipated as goodwill, but in large measure corroborates military hand-holding of engineering prospects. When questioned as to how 14 unmanned, non-militarized flights could have occurred beginning with the awarding of the North American Aviation Company on November 2nd, 2002 to its final flight in 2004, the IEMS refused to either confirm or disconfirm the non-conformity of dates. It had been suggested then that the dates, if stated as factual would potentially confirm, along with further company structure inquiry of NAA that the program had been launched without approval much earlier and to a parent shell company three generations removed from the NAA. Leopold Data, Inc. would make these inquiries public among other notable contributions to the skepticism regarding the program and bid contract by NAA.
While investigating the origins of the technological aspects of the engineering, the firm Leopold Data Inc., made an alarming contribution to the investigation of the projects funding and origins of manufacture. Leopold Data is one of Luxemburg’s independent top data mining offices that seek among other principals to ensure regulated dispensary of aerospace engineering data accumulated in the public sphere. The firm is a non-governmental and public watchdog that focuses on information systems and coding specifically as it relates to non-militarized corporations. In their investigation of the external computers situated along the fuselage of the X-13, Leopold Data found several irregularities in the hardware suggested by official reports concerning the equipment and more importantly the composition of its elements to withstand inter-orbital space travel and the extreme amount of cold fusion needed to generate the fuselage towards the vicinity of Mars. The copper elements for the conduits within the computers were especially flagged for their unlikely resistance to such external pressures. Further investigations into origins of production suggested that the copper used was purchased from a firm in People’s Republic of the Congo, which was in fact owned by a Chinese corporation under the name of New Ore, Inc. (A non-regulated and sanctioned company), yet in an impact report from 2002 was vehemently and minutely details by NAA as being of regulatory origin from the Collahuasi Mines in Chile (an approved and sanctioned mine). The conflation of reports from which materials of manufacture originated led to Leopold Data issuing a decree of insufficient merit to the report, but also to IEMS itself internationally flagging the program for further inquiry. This report and the resulting damage opened a veritable Pandora’s box of intrigue and prosecutions.
Condition (B) and the speculation of Swiss Feroxite material found Dr. Rudolph Obrist original evaluation of the 1972 Feroxite report.
The basis of the elementary nature of the Feroxite material of extraterrestrial origin found in several locations across Switzerland has also come into dispute as of recently. The elemental and microscopic research of the meteorites have been discussed at length by scientists in the subsidiary report to the original speculative reports by Dr. Rudolph Obrist suggesting that the original composition of base elemental patterns of the Feroxite media were classified into three respective types…
Type 1: Siderolites-Those meteorites composed of base elements of “metallic” and “Silicon” composition in equal measure
Type 2: Sideriti-composed of “Ferrous” meteorcritical value
Type 3: Aeroiltes- Composed of three sub-categories of similar composition and considered the most common of all meteorites.
The original Obrist report has been used historically as the most credible and established dispensation of elemental values in regards to the Feroxite composition and research. The original report having been quoted at length in seminal texts for the journal “Nature”, “Swiss Observer” and “Scientific American” amongst a lengthy list of astrophysicist PHD dissertations and has left the original paper to be considered not only truthful, but also correct in terms of geological compositions, gravitational conventions and extra-terrestrial metallurgy and molecular studies. Crucial to this grave mismanagement of academic pursuits is the exacting definition and classifications of the categories of meteorite. It has been found recently, and under much scrutiny and suppression that the three categories in which the Feroxite meteorites have been examined against recent compositional studies of similar geological samples found in the Mariana Trench off the coast of Japan. Confirmed in the geological sampling taken from the Mariana Trench close to Okinawa were a number of sub-marine core samples that indicate a composition similar in base compounds that of ALL THREE categorizations of Obristian meteorite samples taken from Switzerland and other sites recorded through the report. The report in large measure had showed that the compounds bore a high resemblance not to extra-terrestrial base compounds, but rather to sub-marine Chondrite scale compounds, notable of geo-specificity to the areas outlining “Black Smoker” sub-marine vents, which are notably high in sulfur and Chondrite forming with 98% accuracy a chemical and metallurgical composition analogous to the Feroxite meteors suggesting that three types of Obristian classification are to be de-bunked as extraterrestrial and in fact volcanic, but with a base-elemental series of compounds found locally and of Earth origin. Studies of the geological areas of mid-Atlantic dispute are undeniably linked to a formation of 200 million years prior to the suggested Feroxite deposition. This re-calibration of the original report and the debates it has subsequently inspired Further analysis of the original Feroxite Reports suggests, as mentioned above that these meteorites are instead of a volcanic nature and that the high composition of sulphur and chondritic material are validated in sub-marine environments such as the Mariana trench and should act as a catalyst for the re-organization not only of the original report, but the impetus of the exploration currently governed to Mars by the funding of IEMS program.
Suggested impact studies of support documentation of the original report also have critical addendums that speculate about the timeframe and veracity in which the original report claims authenticity. Dr. Obrist is the only known scientist to have had access to the reports and Ferox archive in its full capacity during the intervening years from which the IEMS body was formulated. Though previous discussions regarding the transparency of the archive have not been called into question, the preceding inquiries have set into motion a tumultuous (For Obrists’s legacy) set of official investigation sin which original source material that extend beyond the meteorites themselves has been called into dispute.
The original Ferox Archive is housed as an autonomous body from that of the IEMS program. It operates in complete secrecy and is stated as repository for Martian exploration of the future and in doing so emphasizes a strict selection of security measures and briefs that allow for minimal contact with press, independent research or non-governmental tribunals from obtaining information not fully distributed by its in-house (therefore embedded) press team and research bodies. The objective of the archive as stated previously is to safeguard the distribution of information from the potential of its use in a militarized affect. In 2007 an independent team of scientists operating under the established mandates of IEMS and employed with good faith to act as scientific archivists began to prepare a internally requested and fully licensed celebratory exhibition and publication recording the history of the original discovery to act as a persuadable catalyst for future financing and general good will from the public at large. Growing concern about the privacy of the archives were becoming more vociferous and the president of the Ferox Archive body publicly announced the future publication and exhibition to great aplomb from its headquarters to quell discontent from turned down researchers, conspiracy theorists and the general public alike.
The obvious subterfuge of propaganda was not lost on the public nor the scientists themselves who, again under complete service to the IEMS program began to excitedly thumb through the boxes of information regarding the program. This included technological specifications, photographs, wire tape transmissions from early prototype missions, objective analysis data, computer software programs with outdated technologies among a whole host of other archival considerations in which to manufacture a public exhibition and publication that would honor IEMS, but also their position within the general framework of the “multi-national humanist space program”. The team was comprised of eight scientists all of long-term service and credible backgrounds. The team of eight was assembled for a four-year incursion into the archive in which they were given comparatively free access to documentation and objects.
“The obvious subterfuge of propaganda was not lost on the public nor the scientists themselves who, again under complete service to the IEMS program began to excitedly thumb through the boxes of information regarding the program”.
The lifespan of the project was estimated to warrant a five-year archival excavation in which a slough of final edits would be engaged with the group and the president of the archive. In year three of the process, two scientists (anonymous) on the team unearthed a large amount of photographic records that pertained to the original archive, with pictures and support documents of both Werner and Hagen. In the archive were situated two images of the men with the Feroxite meteors in situ as to the original site of exploration in Switzerland. The narrative that incurred is read as follows in a classified document leaked by none other than Wikileaks in 2014. The classified report was an observance of finds between the two scientists secreted to Wikileaks in 2013. The future history of the team of scientists is still unknown due to the original inclusion of anonymous briefing for the project. No records were allowed to be purposefully kept and all names within had been denied plausible future deployment by the freedom of information act under Article 14 of the “Transnational Secrecy of Non-Militarized Information Act” (1979). The act was established as a watershed international law governed by NATO in order to keep multinational non-militarized documents strictly confidential as to paraphrase the effect of a de-classified information law would abnegate the “Unlawful Sedition Act” (1956), which indicates that information of a multi-national order regarding the secrecy of potential weapons and their information must be held accountable to a plausible act of treason to a particular country in the event that the documents would be publicly dispersed to nefarious ends. This entitled that the team members would remain as anonymous as the documents not given over to the project, which were to be highly screened before publication by the governing body. The transmission sent to Wikileaks was a 67-page document dispelling grave concern over a number of the archival photographs, but also photographs of various missions that the team of two deemed as dubious in nature. The original source photographs themselves revealed that the original images of Werner and Hagen were most likely fake-the anachronisms in clothing and the dissociative properties of the Barium tests revealed the paper sample the team took from the original photographs to be inconsistent with ultraviolet and Barium tests produced after 1946. The Barium and ultra-violet tests reveal the brighteners within a photographic paper to “glow” under light and chemical Barium testing. All manufactured papers reveal this glow as their chemical constituency and the brighteners found in the papers themselves have undergone atmospheric change since Atomic tests had begun at Trinity in 1945. The paper samples and brightener data has been well-known and used to present cases in the photographic market to conclusively test fake or later-printed photographic images of considerable value, notably a copy of Man Ray/ Marcel Duchamp’s “Dust Breeding” when James Thrall Sob, a known collector whose collection now resides in the Museum of Modern Art challenged the authenticity of its “vintage” nature. The case weighed in favor of Soby’s doubts thus concretizing the use of both Barium and ultra violet testing in cases of papers. The following extract is from the report…
Conclusions on the Original Werner Hagen Photographs
Louis Hagen photograph (Article 7B)
Alfred Gottlob Werner photograph (Article 7C)
Re: Notations on ultra violet testing and legitimacy of date qualifications in the original source material of the IEMS archive.
Upon registration of the original photographs of Werner and Hagen, the team participating in the research for the publication of “As It Happened”, the exhibition and publication of the IEMS program’s public information arm, concern was expressed as to the relevancy of the original photographic source documents in the Dr. Rudolph H. Obrist Collection. Both members of the team individually expressed doubt upon the veracity of the photographic papers, but also of the attire of the sitters in situ with the original meteorites.
In the case of the original support documents, a hand held ultra violet light was used in private to grade the papers. The results were unanimous between this test and 3 subsequent tests with different lights, including two outside lights and one internal laboratory light that the original source documents kept in the folder with original letters, and affects were conclusive as to being established after 1946 denying the plausible respect to their being made or printed near the June of 1944 date. Possible outcomes of later printing are possible, but inconclusive. The notations featured on the backs of the documents which had been allegedly signed by the men are signed and dated by both and no negatives are found with the archive in which a celluloid test could be conducted for matching film speed, lighting and processing chemicals.
A small 3mm x 3mm corner of the original document was smuggled out from the lab after the UV tests and deposited anonymously with a lab in Chicago, Il for which results also tested positive that Article 7B was produced after 1946. The analysis, which was conducted in a photographic conservation laboratory, was thought to date to the decade of the 1970s. Though it remains unclear due to the small fragmentary sample used, the laboratory was convinced by its analysis that the article dated to this timeframe. The laboratory was given no information to guide its analysis either way.
Further research indicates a skepticism regarding the attire of Mr. Hagen, which are incompatible with the date of 1944. The hat and slacks that Mr. Hagen is seen as wearing are incongruent to clothing styles of the 1940s in general and the double-seam stitch that features under microscopy of Mr. Hagen’s trousers indicate a machine made tailoring not available conclusively until 1971. The hat also bears an unknown style to the time, but was less implacable due to restrictions of time before the submitting of this report.
In conclusion and given the evidence of these two images via ultraviolet analysis and clothing analysis, the team is positive that the studies bear a fraudulent uncertainty as to their origins and it can be pre-supposed that other wider bodies of the archive itself could be held accountable to untruth.
Considering the inconsistencies produced not only in IEMS funding evaluated by data firms and the scientific analysis of both X-13 fuselage wiring coupled with the photographic tests, it is reasonably arguable that there is at the very least a narrative within the IEMS framework that does not dictate towards conventional methods of transparency. Further reports leaked by Wikileaks indicate that large swathes of data gathered from Mars and its environs may also be susceptible to inconvenient questions without answers held accountable not only to the recently deceased Dr. Obrist, but to the larger conglomerate organization that shadows the IEMS funding and projects. Further measures of research are to be tendered with certainty in the coming months given the plight of the international communities concerns regarding the governance of supposed non-militarized space explorations that originate on fraudulent data.
Information Value and A-Historical Analysis Methodology
The examination and final conclusion of the Ferox Archive by independent means has resulted in a survey of intellectual property code that infers the state of local and non-government public archives as invalid due to terms of legislation recently processed in the wake of the burgeoning Ferox scandal in which the archival impulse at large has been denied status of formal measure in historical records. The sequence methodology of enacting a large archive such as Ferox into the public consciousness as a means of A-historical production has now been considered debunked and several other major archives are now facing analysis and will be researched by independent bodies that correspond to official recognition of the new legislation regarding material of scientific value that is used as “false flag” and “false narrative” incentives for propaganda and capital largesse. The direct insinuation amongst governing bodies and current legislature on the grounds of A-historical material suggests that further research and finding will conclude the veracity of forged or re-purposed documentary tracts sold to the public at large as misinformation. It is therefore recommended by these independent bodies that the Ferox archive itself, with all its matter of inconsistency be made the primary example of misinformation in supply side archival holdings. It is recommended that a healthy and long investigation be made into the archive itself, but also the support documents and historical material surrounding its longevity in public consciousness. A series of interviews, scientific examination of documents and the complete analysis of structural and procedural frameworks of how this archive began will be upheld and will be used a future reference point about how historical material and memory are manipulated for plans which espouse future systems of project based capital raising and median diffusion of its “researches”.
Ferox/The Forgotten Archives
(All Rights Reserved. Text @ Brad Feuerhelm. Images @ Nicolas Polli.)