In a new Insight article, Whitley Strieber contributes scanning electron microscope photographs of  layered bismuth-magnesium material obtained from an unknown source by Art Bell in the 1990s and given to Linda Moulton Howe and Whitley Strieber. In 2018, TTSA obtained some of the material for analysis. Whitley reports that it was privately analyzed at Southwest Research in San Antonio by their then head of materials science, William Mallow. The analysis was not done on an official basis, but Dr. Mallow received permission to utilize the institute’s equipment.

Analysis under the scanning electron microscope revealed that the layered material consisted of alternating layers of bismuth and magnesium which did not appear to be remarkable in themselves. However, as the 600x magnification scan pictured here shows, there is nothing between the layers holding them together. This was judged to be anomalous, as there is no reason for the material to remain in this state without an adherent being present.

To read Whitley’s Insight article, click here.

Dreamland Video podcast
To watch the FREE video version on YouTube, click here.

Subscribers, to watch the subscriber version of the video, first log in then click on Dreamland Subscriber-Only Video Podcast link.


  1. Not enough information provided to comment on the micrograph. If the layers are left to right, those are some pretty chunky layers. That is say sixty spherical bacteria end to end. Doesn’t exactly look very un-earthly to me. The layer marked “B” looks like it has dust or oxides left over from manufacture all over the surface. Can’t tell the plane of this sample, if it has been cut prior to sample preparation. If this surface has been gold sputter coated first (?) or not. Got a quadrupole mass spectrometer or XRD chemical analysis to provide a hint at adhesion? If adhesion is the right term.

  2. What pretentious nonsense. If he had more data, I assume he would have provided it. “Looks like??” Where do you get off? You can’t make a useful observation based on what you see here, so why pretend otherwise? I think what Strieber is offering is a direction for further study, and it makes a lot of sense. If there’s an anomaly here, that would be it.

    For all your palaver, the bottom line is that your comment is entirely meaningless. Professionally garbage.

    1. Wait a minute. You’re saying that no one else can form an opinion from the photograph yet that’s exactly what was done by the experts who examined it. It’s not pretentious to State the obvious and needing more information is a no-brainer

  3. It does appear interesting. However, like HD is saying, there isn’t a lot to go on with these two SEM images. It would be interesting to look at this at 30,000x, maybe even up to 100,000x to see if there are microstructures present on the sample. Also, if there is a gap between the layers, at higher magnifications, you could measure the distance between the layers. Were there images of a cross section of the material?
    Current technology would be able to provide much more data that may be useful to understand the nature of the material.

  4. Author

    SecretHarmonies is correct. I provided what I have in order to suggest direction for further study. HD seems to be complaining that this study has not already been done. Well, here’s a good direction for it to go in.

  5. I am perplexed. Not like I was trying to start an argument. Secretharmonies- you have a strange thought process. I am not complaining about anything Whitley, merely stating the obvious. Not enough information about sample preparation. In particular what it is supposed to be from.

    For example I could go cut a piece off of my couch and mount it up for imaging. looking at the image at x600 wont tell me much about where the piece of textile is from or why it was manufactured that way.

  6. It is wonderful that Whitley provided the sample BUT I will be honest that TTSA as an organization bothers me greatly.
    They came in with supposedly all of these government “insiders”, supposedly deep pockets and mainstream media connections yet what have they EXACTLY produced since then ?
    The “tictac” video I’ll give them but besides that— what else ? Whitley on his own has produced vastly more UFO evidence than all of TTSA.
    Why do they need Whitley’s material ?? Why can’t they use their supposed “vast government contacts” to provide them with crashed ufo materials ?

    I hope TTSA stuns us with real “evidence” eventually but so far, I’m very underwhelmed.

  7. Author

    I hear you loud and clear. I have what Bill Mallow could give me. Southwest research did not want him working on this. He could only do so much. TTSA now has some of the same material. They can do the work now. They also have money, which we most assuredly did not. What they will do, if anything, is another question.

  8. I was googling the latest in UFO news just the other day and came across a very recent article featuring some of Luis Elizondo’s comments on development of this “exotic material.” I was disappointed again to see him speak of neutralizing threats and application of newfound technologies to national defense with a clear intent to vet any findings through official channels so the “right decision-makers” can make informed decisions. I mean isn’t TTSA’s approach the very quagmire Unknowncountry has been trying to free us from for years? How could any one organization or individual ever presume to hold humanity back from the realization that we are not alone?

  9. The military and the intelligence community think in terms of threats because that’s all they know about this. They have been fighting it for 70 years. They have been fighting it on a physical level. In other words they actually haven’t been doing anything of significance. But they don’t know that and we are all suffering for it.

  10. It’s not about fighting. This business of making weapons against the visitors is absurd. It can’t be done. The pitiful part of it is they are very skilled at pretending that our weapons matter. “A new world if you can take it.” You don’t accomplish that by shooting, you do that by being clever, innovative, skillful, and determined.

    1. Do you think the phrase “Take it” refers to the act of possession ? IE: there was an apple on the table did you take it ?
      Or the is it a reference to acceptance, IE: there is a lot of stress in that job, are you sure you can take it ?.

      Some people cant “take” an uncomfortable truth. I wonder if that’s what they meant ?

Leave a Reply