The current debate over the authenticity of the alleged UFO abduction of Brazil resident Urandir Oliveira has been hotly contested on both sides. Based on past reports of Oliveira's UFO hoaxing, the consensus of the Brazilian UFO community, and recent scientific findings on the case, UFOWATCHDOG.COM is of the opinion that the alleged UFO abduction of Oliveira is a hoax.

After analytical chemist Phyllis A. Budinger and scientific research technologist Nicholas Reiter released the findings of their scientific analyses of the purported evidence in this case, UFO personality and Earthfiles.com editor Linda Moulton Howe published a report in an attempt to refute the findings of Budinger and Reiter.

Howe, through her website and on late night radio, stated that scientific findings supported the case as being anomalous (click here for further details on the entire case). One of the claims being made was that during the alleged UFO abduction of Oliveira, unusual stones fell from the sky. Howe reported that she had these stones examined by Dr.Art Johnson, a professor of geology at the University of Pennsylvania. Howe reported that Dr.Johnson stated, "You have presented us with objects that are well outside the things we have encountered before, outside our experience." Howe has made this statement the cornerstone, so to speak, of her argument that Oliveira's claim has merit.

This statement appeared to directly contradict the findings of Budinger and Reiter, and Howe presented it in a manner indicative of the stones being extraordinary. However, this statement isn't all its hyped up to be. While a few key players in this UFO soap opera continue to fight back and forth through e-mails lists and on the Internet, UFOWATCHDOG.COM did what should have been done to begin with...

On 16-JUNE-03, UFOWATCHDOG.COM contacted Dr. Art Johnson and inquired about his statement. Dr. Johnson stated, "What I meant was that we (my Penn colleagues and I) had never encountered objects like this before. We have explored the samples given to us a good deal more over the past 2 weeks and they are unusual though seemingly analogous materials have been found in Utah. We do not believe that the button-like stones from Brazil are extraterrestrial, in fact they are made up of the local rock/soil material. We will talk with Ms Howe again and let her know more details."

Dr.Johnson was kind enough to spare some time to answer a few questions about the stones, as well.

UFOWATCHDOG.COM: Were you ever provided a copy of a report from an analytical chemist named Phyllis Budinger? This report detailed EDS analysis conducted on the same stone sampling provided to you by Ms.Howe.

DR.JOHNSON: I saw the report and looked at it briefly, but was not given a copy.

UFOWATCHDOG.COM: In your professional opinion, is there anything about the samples you were provided with that would lead you to believe they were an anomaly outside of your expertise? Did your analysis reveal anything extraordinary about the stones?

DR.JOHNSON: We do find objects in soils and some types of sedimentary rocks that look, on the outside, similar to Ms. Howe's button-like stones. The inside is quite different from the objects I have seen, hence they were "outside my experience". This is a simple statement reflecting a simple fact. I am well aware that journalists sometimes seek to bolster their point of view with quotes taken out of context. Now you know the context. Determining the composition of these objects using the methods and tools available to mineralogists and petrologists is the first step in trying to determine how they were formed. We will explore these stones with the tools available to us, and offer what we can in the way of explanations. Any descriptions/interpretations we offer will conform to the standards expected of peer-reviewed science.

UFOWATCHDOG.COM: Are the stones something you simply have not seen before due to the geographic location from which the stones originated?

DR.JOHNSON: I personally had not seen stones like this before. A search on the Web provided descriptions of stones that seem to me to be analagous. This is a useful starting point for trying to understand their origin.

UFOWATCHDOG.COM: Have you read the report on Earthfiles.com and was it an accurate representation of your findings?

DR.JOHNSON: I have not read the text carefully, but the data (figures) are those that we gave to Ms. Howe.

UFOWATCHDOG.COM: Were you ever told about the events surrounding the stones?

DR.JOHNSON: A brief account was given to me. That information has had no influence on our study of these rocks. The objects are worthy of rigorous investigation by scientists with the appropriate expertise as they may eventually yield information of interest to other earth scientists. We are not interested in supporting or refuting claims about extraterrestrial phenomena, but we are interested in the stones if they yield new information of use to the geology community.

Dr.Johnson added, "Over the past 20 years, my remarks have been taken out of context many times by reporters. Obviously I don't like it, but the alternative of turning every journalist away because of being afraid of what they might say doesn't make too much sense either. We will stay with this for a while and see where it leads. "

It should be noted that Dr.Johnson's statements support those earlier observations made in Budinger's initial report about the stones being analogous. With this statement from Dr.Johnson collaborating the findings of Budinger and Reiter, it is clear that the gun was again jumped about claims of extraterrestrial proof when a complete analysis had yet to be made.

Simply, there are two core claims being made here by those supporting this case:

CLAIM: The stones are anomalous.

FACT: With the recent statements of Dr.Johnson supporting what Budinger and Reiter had already stated as far back as April, it is clear that the stones are not extraordinary, but simply something never encountered before by the geologists in Pennsylvania. New discoveries are made in many fields of science, but this doesn't mean that simply because something is unique that it is proof of an extraterrestrial event. Far from it. Any reasonable person reading and hearing Howe's report would be drawn to the conclusion, based on how Dr.Johnson's statement was used, that the stones were something completely outside the realm of the norm. Clearly they are not.

CLAIM: The cotton from the bedsheets should have burned far before the polyester material and the polyester melting could not be replicated by any heat source.

FACT: This claim is quite misleading as the effects were clearly replicated using a clothes iron and a soldering gun. UFOWATCHDOG.COM conducted its own bedsheet experiment to demonstrate that you could indeed burn a bedsheet and not scorch it. The bedsheet physically shrank when the torch was applied to it. It should also be noted that other piece of the same bedsheet were burned and shrinking from the heat was observed without leaving a single scorch mark. You can see the replication done by UFOWATCHDOG.COM by clicking here.

While the bedsheets done for this website have yet to be microscopically examined, it does indeed demonstrate that you can melt polyester without scorching cotton. Perhaps this is because I didn't take the torch and apply it point blank to the bedsheets like Professor Barndt, whom did not respond to an e-mail inquiry.

Since this case rests solely on the two above claims, it is clear there is no case here at all. You have a person with a history of UFO hoaxing, physical evidence with no extraordinary properties or findings, evidence that has been replicated when it was claimed such replication wasn't possible...in other words, you have nothing. Case closed.