Wednesday, April 08, 2015

The Roswell Slides and Stan Friedman


While many seem to be tired of the Roswell Slides nonsense, there has been one additional announcement. Stan Friedman, who now labels himself as the “first civilian investigator of Roswell,” was invited to participant in the Mexico City extravaganza by Jaime Maussan and then Don Schmitt.

Friedman, who had remained somewhat silent as the controversy swirled finally chimed in. In a well-publicized statement he wrote:

My first thought was since I would be asked my views, as the first civilian investigator of the Roswell crashed saucer event, it would be nice to have first hand [sic] information…. So I read as much as I could, positive and negative. I have not held copies of the slides. I could find no convincing information that there is any connection between the slides and Roswell. How would an outsider gain access to the real bodies? ... I have seen no specific data to convince me these are phony. But that doesn’t establish a connection to the Roswell events…. But I don’t want to appear to add legitimacy by my presence in Mexico City in the absence of serious evidence of the slides being what is being claimed they are. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence…

Overlooking the fact that what is claimed without proof can be denied without proof, Friedman’s statement sums up the situation as most of us understand it. There is no proof that the creature in the slide is alien or from the Roswell crash. There seems to be no solid evidence that the slides were made in 1947, near Roswell or who took the pictures. There are too many loose ends in this and unless they can be cleared up, this will end badly for those involved, something that Friedman seems to understand.

Don Schmitt, once Friedman made his position clear, issued his own statement. He said that Friedman had been offered an opportunity to review all their information including, if I understood it correctly, a chance to see high quality copies of the slides. Friedman didn’t take this opportunity, which seems a little strange. He certainly could have looked at the slides and received his briefing, unless it was tied to an agreement to attend the Mexico City presentation.

At any rate it would seem strange that Friedman, who has endorsed the nonsensical Aztec UFO crash and continues to endorse the long discredited MJ-12 documents, would pass up this opportunity. I think that says something about the slides themselves and the situation around them.

Paul Kimball, a nephew of Friedman’s by marriage (if I have that relation right) talked to his uncle about this because some thought the statement hadn’t been issued by Friedman. Friedman confirmed that he would not be among those in Mexico City. In this case, it seems that Friedman understands the real consequences of involvement in Mexico City and was wise enough to avoid it.

49 comments:

Paul Young said...

Yep. Any serious UFO researcher who wants to nail their reputation to this "Roswell slides" business is going to regret it forever.

This can only end in tears for Don and Tom I'm afraid.

Then again...it's like watching a car crash. You know you shouldn't, but you want to watch and see what happens.

Stephen Jackson said...

Roswell, as I see it, is it a dead end. Don and Tom have made a career from the story. Its almost as though they are now grasping at anything to keep the story alive and people interested.

Nothing much more can be wrote about Roswell, no new evidence is coming to light and witnesses are now few. I'm not a close follower of Tom and Don but it seems convenient that a story came along to revive Roswell.

ufodude2010 said...

'At any rate it would seem strange that Friedman, ... continues to endorse the long discredited MJ-12 documents'. Now come on Kevin, you know he has only endorsed three of them. Making blanket statements like that seriously hurts your credibility.

Dennis Pharr said...

In one of the recent YouTube videos produced by Jaime Maussan where he is interviewing Tom Carey, in an effort to promote/defend the slides, Mr. Carey states that they have been able to decipher a few of the words on the (what appears to be a) hand-written sign in the glass case with the body. In the video, Mr. Carey stated that the deciphered words offer proof that the body is extraterrestrial.

I've been searching for the video again to get the exact wording Mr. Carey used when referencing the wording on the sign, however I can't seem to find the right video clip. Either that or they have pulled down the original video and edited out the section of the interview where the statement was made.

I agree with most everyone else, the May 5th symposium will have disastrous consequences for all involved.


Terry the Censor said...

@ufodude2010

Friedman's use of MJ-12 is more broad than you let on.

For instance, in his book about the Hill case, Stan brings up Menzel but counters none of Menzel's statements about the Hill evidence. In fact, Friedman mentions none of these statements; rather, he brings up Menzel just so he can smear him with MJ-12! Thus, Menzel's assessment of the case is dispensed with -- without any discussion of what Menzel actually wrote.

Stan Friedman: exemplar of scientific ufology.

cda said...

Friedman actually does have some standards. He certainly rejected the infamous Santilli 'alien autopsy' film from the start. I imagine his apparent rejection of the forthcoming slides is based on the same kind of thinking.

I assume the reason he will not reverse his views on the MJ-12 stuff is that he spent an awful lot of time & resources researching them (both before and after they were first made public), plus the fact that he would have to make an almighty 180 degree about-face. It would be almost like reversing one's political views!

KRandle said...

Stephen -

He endorses MJ-12, the concept of MJ-12 and the nonsense that surrounds the "Big Three" documents... The evidence proves that MJ-12 is a hoax regardless of what Friedman says about these three. They are fatally flawed and his continued claims that he has satisfactorial answered the criticisms of them is in error. The statement is accurate in that he continues to endorse MJ-12 whether it is part of or all of the documents.

Curt Collins said...

"Don Schmitt... issued his own statement."

Was this published? I'd like to see the text of this.

KRandle said...

Curt -

Thought you and most others had seen this. Text of Don's statement:


Let it be noted, that even though we accept Stanton Friedman's reversal regarding the presentation in Mexico, we totally disagree with his reason for that decision. Upon his initial acceptance, Stan was offered an opportunity to be briefed by us and ask whatever questions he felt necessary. As of this posting he has never accepted that privilege. Failing that, we are left to conclude that the only source of information in making his decision was someone outside of our group. It should also be noted that we were not the ones to label the slides as the "Roswell Slides" or register an Internet domain under that same name. That was done by other individuals who apparently did persuade Stan to pre-judge without knowing all the facts. In the same context, we have never suggested that the slides have anything to do with the Plains of San Agustin or Aztec. On May 5, we will allow the actual slides and the entire battery of scientific analysis weigh in as to the authenticity of this discovery. Regretfully, Stan has allowed the "noisy negativists" influence his better judgement and that he also declined a thorough briefing on the situation from those individuals who extended the invitation in the first place. Unlike true scientific methodology, science by proclamation is not true science...something Stan should know as well or better than most.


Don Schmitt

Curt Collins said...

Thanks, Kevin. No, I believe that's an Internet debut for that Schmitt statement. You might want to edit your original post to include it.

By the way, it's a hoot!

cda said...

Ha ha.

"science by proclamation" and "noisy negativists".

Sound familiar?

Schmitt deliberately uses the very same words & phrases that Stan himself uses when referring to those who oppose his UFO ideas.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote:
He endorses MJ-12, the concept of MJ-12 and the nonsense that surrounds the "Big Three" documents...

however, kevin, even though you do not accept any of the traditional "MJ-12" documents as authentic, you have also previously endorsed the CONCEPT of MJ-12, i.e. a very high level, secret government UFO oversight group formed in the wake of Roswell and the great saucer wave of 1947.

In the past, you have cited Gen. Arthur Exon's testimony on this, that he ran into such a group of high muckeemuck generals and admirals when he was at the Pentagon in the 1950s, what he nicknamed the Unholy 13.

But to be honest about it, aside from Exon's testimony, we have absolutely no evidence of such a Pentagon military UFO group. It makes sense to me it would exist, but we can't document it in any way. About the closest I can come are the newspaper statements in July/August 1952 during the second great saucer wave naming Gen. Roger Ramey (now USAF Operations Officer at the Pentagon, who ordered jet intercepts of UFOs), and Gen. John Samford, USAF head of intelligence, as being the top two USAF saucer experts. Ramey, called the USAF "saucer man," also went on CBS TV and said he had been studying the saucers for the last six years, or since 1946, if we take him at his word, or BEFORE Kenneth Arnold and Roswell a year later.

Other groups have been proposed as the "real" MJ-12-type group, such as the National Security Council or the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence (Brad Sparks favors this). But I think the most convincing evidence of such a group were the genuine 1950/51 Canadian documents involving Wilbert Smith, naming Dr. Vannevar Bush as heading up such a super-classified group within the DOD's Research and Development Board, which also did work for the CIA's OS/I.

I also don't see why we need to limit outself to just one such high-level UFO study group. Various government agencies (CIA, military intelligence/counterintelligence, etc.) might all have their own groups, perhaps feeding into one umbrella group, or perhaps acting relatively independently of one another (inter-agency rivalry).

Bush's group in the RDB might be more concerned with the scientific and back-engineering aspects, with other groups more concerned and specialized about other implications, such as military and political.

KRandle said...

David -

I am referring only to things MJ-12 and not anything else. There is no wider reading to this, other than MJ-12 and that is it. Please do not extrapolate from there.

cda said...

So Generals Ramey and Samford were the "top two USAF saucer experts".

I wonder if their military records show this. Presumably not.

It is the sort of phrase Keyhoe used; he applied it to members of Project Blue Book.

Various military and civilian persons have, from time to time, been called 'saucer experts' or 'UFO experts'. For all I know, even Wilbert Smith was designated thus.

Poor old UK. There is nobody here that I can think of who has had this title given to them (but I could be wrong).

Any author, researcher or investigator (especially those with PhDs or other high academic qualifications), who is inclined to the ET view, can be referred to as an 'expert'. Simple, isn't it?

And those few US Generals who dare to mention UFOs, and are suspected of hiding the truth, are another breed of 'saucer expert'.

albert said...

@Paul Young
"...Then again...it's like watching a car crash...."
.
It's super-slow-motion car crash, which will most likely end without a collision...
.
......................
@Everyone
IMO, Stan backed off because he 'smelled a rat', and kudos to him for that. On the other hand, I don't buy the idea that anyone attending the Big Show is also offering his implicit endorsement.
.
An objective scientist or layperson would most certainly refuse to advance any opinion until he has seen and evaluated all the evidence. Then, and only then, should an opinion be offered. I don't believe that it's logical to pre-evaluate evidence that hasn't been presented yet.
.
That said, I'm disappointed by the manner in which this whole affair has been handled.
...

Stephen Jackson said...

Kevin -

You addressed me with an MJ-12 reply yet I never mentioned it. I think your mixing me up with ufodudes comment ;-)

David Rudiak said...

CDA wrote:

"So Generals Ramey and Samford were the "top two USAF saucer experts".

...It is the sort of phrase Keyhoe used; he applied it to members of Project Blue Book."

Yes, that is exactly the way they were represented by the NEWSPAPERS during their big Washington press conference of July 29, 1952, the largest such Pentagon press conference since WWII.

Where did "Keyhoe" enter into this? Trust CDA to continue to play Klass Klown instead of sticking to the facts.

The press conference was also held the same day that the Air Force publicly admitted to issuing a "shoot-down" order against the saucers, saying their pilots were under orders to shoot them down if they couldn't talk them down. (I wonder what language you use to talk down mirages, Venus, and swamp gas?)

Some of the shoot-down stories:

http://www.roswellproof.com/ShootDown_INS_72952.html

More background on Ramey's background on UFOs and the 1952 press conference:

http://www.roswellproof.com/ramey_and_ufos.html

Ramey's interview on CBS TV about UFOs a few days later:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Ramey_1952.html

Note that he is called the AF "saucer man" and Ramey says they had been studying UFOs for the past 6 years, or since 1946, a year before Kenneth Arnold and Roswell.

Also notice Ramey quoted saying "he was convinced at least that the saucer's had no hostile intent. He did not rule out the possibility that the objects were interplanetary visitors, but he was exceedingly skeptical."

Hmmm, when you use wording like "no hostile intent", there is a direct implication of intelligent control. Can mirages, Venus, swamp gas and "not material objects" (what Ramey also asserted as true) ever have "hostile intent?" Now "interplanetary visitors"--yes, they could conceivably have "hostile intent", the old Martian invasion fear.

Also note Ramey acknowledging 20% of the reports could NOT be explained.

Ramey debunking Kenneth Arnold's flying saucer a week before Roswell, again the not men from Mars message:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Ramey_and_Kalberer.html

1954, Gen. Nathan Twining, now AF Chief of Staff, accompanied by Ramey, publically acknowledging that 10% could not be explained, they had the best brains in the country studying the problem, and that we had nothing to fear even if they were men from Mars.

Same year and previous year, Twining also issued Air Force Regulation 200-2 defining UFOs as any unconventional flying OBJECT which by shape or performance characteristics could not be identified by experts even after investigation, and that they were to be investigated for reasons of national security and for their technical aspects.

Nonmaterial things do not have national security implications or technical aspects that can be investigated.

But according to CDA, nothing to see here, move along. Ha, ha!

Stephen Jackson said...

Wow. Don said they never labelled them the Roswell slides. Is this a backing off from a Roswell link?

They are trying to show they are from the exact same year, the man that owned the slides was in Roswell etc but now saying they didn't give them the Roswell label so let them just present the evidence?! They may not have called them the Roswell slides but they wanted them to be attached to the event

David Rudiak said...

I wrote:
"1954, Gen. Nathan Twining, now AF Chief of Staff, accompanied by Ramey, publically acknowledging that 10% could not be explained, they had the best brains in the country studying the problem, and that we had nothing to fear even if they were men from Mars."

Forgot link:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Twining_5_15_54.html

Terry the Censor said...

> Ramey says they had been studying UFOs for the past 6 years, or since 1946, a year before Kenneth Arnold and Roswell.

Where does it say Ramey studied 1946 UFO reports?

Terry the Censor said...

> when you use wording like "no hostile intent", there is a direct implication of intelligent control.

As you well know, David, many people at the time feared UFOs were Soviet craft or weapons. There is no warrant for you to psychically scan Ramey's brain for knowledge of aliens.

David Rudiak said...

I wrote: "Ramey says they had been studying UFOs for the past 6 years, or since 1946, a year before Kenneth Arnold and Roswell."

Terry reflexively criticizes:
"Where does it say Ramey studied 1946 UFO reports?"

Terry, maybe you should actually read my links more carefully before criticizing me.

AP report of Ramey's CBS TV appearance, FIRST SENTENCE:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Ramey_1952.html

WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 (AP)--Maj. Gen. Roger M. Ramey, the Air Force "saucer man," said today six years of flying saucer reports had "reasonably well" convinced him there is no such thing.

You do know about the 1946 Scandanavian "ghost rockets"? That first post-war UFO wave was investigated by the CIA forerunner Central Intelligence Group directed by Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg, who BTW was in charge at the Pentagon during Roswell and in 1952 was AF Chief of Staff?

It also says that Ramey was "currently in charge of the Air Force's investigation of 'flying saucer' reports". If we was being even slightly thorough, he would be reading up on the 1946 "ghost rocket" investigation.

Just to see how "whacko" these military investigations into the ghost rockets were, here is a Top Secret USAF Europe document that was classified for nearly 50 years, where it reports that Swedish Air Intelligence in 1948 told them many of their technical experts thought the ghost rockets and flying saucers were an advanced extraterrestrial technology:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/1948-USAF-ET-doc.html

I wrote: "when you use wording like "no hostile intent", there is a direct implication of intelligent control."

Terry criticized "As you well know, David, many people at the time feared UFOs were Soviet craft or weapons. There is no warrant for you to psychically scan Ramey's brain for knowledge of aliens."

I don't need to "psychically scan Ramey's brain" Terry. Instead I just read the articles and see what he was quoted as saying. Try it.

The articles say Ramey basically ruled out the saucers being Russian, saying they weren't even material objects:

AP: "I don't believe they enter into the defense of the country particularly. Soviet Russia has no power to produce an object that can't be tracked as material or that uses such fantastic power as we hear about in these reports."

N.Y. Herald-Tribune and St. Louis Post-Dispatch version:

Headlines:
Gen. Ramey Declares 'Saucers'
Are Neither Russian Nor Hostile

HIGH AIRMAN SAYS REDS CAN'T BUILD 'FLYING SAUCERS'


FIRST SENTENCE: The "flying saucer" scare was further deflated last night when Maj. Gen. Roger Ramey, operations chief of the Air Force, said he was convinced that Soviet Russia today cannot produce a material object capable of the limitless speed attributed to the "saucers."

He repeatedly gives reason why he thinks they aren't material (unlimited speed requiring too much energy, supposedly not trackable on radar, supposedly leave no contrails, supposedly can't be photographed--mostly lies or partial truths, but that is what he said). Instead he says maybe they are atmospheric anomalies.

So if they can't be Russian and supposedly are some sort of nonmaterial natural phenomena, why even bring up "no hostile intent?" Maybe it has to do with another issue raised in the interview, public hysteria:

AP; "The Air Force is attempting now to make fast explanations." This was in answer to a query whether the Air force was trying to dispel "hysteria."

Yep, saying they were not Russian had "no hostile intent", and were not a national security concern might have something to do dispelling public hysteria.

Incidentally, Ramey was still using the nonmaterial, "insubstantial" line a year later:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Ramey_1953_AVROSaucer.html

Terry the Censor said...

> Terry, maybe you should actually read my links more carefully before criticizing me.

You do not answer the question -- not rationally, anyway.

Ramey does not say he studied reports since 1946, the AP writer does. Ramey doesn't mention ghost rockets, you impute that to him illogically (since you eschew term "psychically"). You say:

> If [h]e was being even slightly thorough, he would be reading up on the 1946 "ghost rocket" investigation.

Reading a report created in 1946 is not the same as reading it in 1946. I've read Webb's 1961 NICAP report on the Hill case. By your reasoning, that means I have studied the Hill case since 1961 -- before I was born!

David, you should actually read your links, not read into them. Your all-pervading USG-UFO conspiracy theory requires you to believe Ramey was investigating UFOs a year before Arnold rather than countenance the possibility that the reporter made a mistake.

Terry the Censor said...

> "Soviet Russia has no power to produce an object that can't be tracked as material or that uses such fantastic power as we hear about in these reports."

David, you just proved my point! I said people were worried about a Societ-UFO connection at the time, and, sure enough, the article addresses that exact concern.

That's a direct and unambiguous "assertion," not the alien "implication" you divined.

You can't read! You can only read into!

Goodness! Do you use the Ramey memo as an eye chart in your office?

cda said...

The Ramey memo as an opticians' eye chart? Next time I need glasses I'll drop a hint to my own optician (!).

To be more serious, I am baffled as to what Gen Ramey really thought about UFOs. From the various quotes DR gives, he did not believe they were Russian, neither did he believe they were interplanetary, nor were they of US origin. Yet he is still described as an "expert" by the press.

How can you be an expert of something that you do not believe exists?

I assume the 'six years' is merely a slight, excusable, exaggeration by one year, i.e. Ramey had followed the subject for the 6 years (count them) from 1947 through half of 1952.

Therefore, by the press definition, he became an 'expert'.
DR apparently accepts that description. What the press did not know, but DR does know (or strongly suspects) is that Ramey knew the dreaded secret all along, starting from that fateful day in July '47, and of course took it to his grave. Some guy.

Don Maor said...

Terry said:

"Your all-pervading USG-UFO conspiracy theory requires you to believe Ramey was investigating UFOs a year before Arnold rather than countenance the possibility that the reporter made a mistake."

Well Terry I was surprised to read that Ramey make commentaries BEFORE the Roswell case, denying the possibility that Arnold's flying objects were ET. How did he know so quickly that Arnold's sighting were not ET ships? The likely answer is Ramey was already immersed in the topic. Ghost rockets from Sweden occured in 1946 and Foo Fighter tales were from the second world war, so it does not seem strange that someone in the Army was assigned to study them.

So your guess that the reporter made a mistake is only a speculation, of the style "how could I possibly deny this?"

Best,

cda said...

Don:

"Well Terry I was surprised to read that Ramey make commentaries BEFORE the Roswell case, denying the possibility that Arnold's flying objects were ET. How did he know so quickly that Arnold's sighting were not ET ships? The likely answer is Ramey was already immersed in the topic."

Look at those press stories again. The likely answer (far more likely than your answer) is that Arnold himself had already referred to ET ships before Ramey even uttered a word on the saucers.

As far as I know, there is not the slightest evidence that Ramey was involved with either foo fighters or the Swedish ghost rockets. But I could be wrong. So your guess about this is "only a speculation", isn't it?

Don Maor said...

CDA said:
"As far as I know, there is not the slightest evidence that Ramey was involved with either foo fighters or the Swedish ghost rockets. But I could be wrong. So your guess about this is "only a speculation", isn't it?"

Yes CDA, it is a speculation that might explain the "six years" detail, of course it is offered only as a counterargument to the firstly presented speculation that the "6 years" was an exageration by one year. Right?

In any case, the FACT that Ramey was speaking about saucers and Arnold sighting, before Roswell happened, is much more consistent with that notion that the "6 years" is the correct number.

See this link:
http://www.roswellproof.com/Ramey_and_Kalberer.html#anchor_3632

Don Maor said...

On other view, if we accept the speculation that the "six years" was an exaggeration or an error, and that the Ramey UFO career started exclusively due to the Roswell incident, the fact that Ramey was speaking about flying saucers in June 30 of 1947 might mean that the real recovery of the disc and bodies occured in June 27, 28 or 29, and later happenings and findings by Brazel only were mistaken associations announced in July 8, etc. However, this maybe considered an unorthodox hypothesis.

David Rudiak said...

Don Maor wrote:
"Well Terry I was surprised to read that Ramey make commentaries BEFORE the Roswell case, denying the possibility that Arnold's flying objects were ET. How did he know so quickly that Arnold's sighting were not ET ships? The likely answer is Ramey was already immersed in the topic."

CDA's argument by assertion:
"Look at those press stories again. The likely answer (far more likely than your answer) is that Arnold himself had already referred to ET ships before Ramey even uttered a word on the saucers."

Look at the real press stories and Arnold was not yet on public record saying HE thought they were ET ships. That was over a week later (July 7). That was also when Arnold said he had received a great deal of fan mail, some saying they also thought that (saucers were ET).

Arnold did mention on June 27 his unnerving meeting with a hysterical woman in a Pendleton, Oregon cafe shouting at him that he was the man who saw the men from Mars, then fled the cafe in tears saying she wanted to be home with her children before the world ended.

There was certainly some press speculation about what the saucers represented, including some ET theories. We do not know just how much of the public really believed this or were worried about it, since no study or polling was done back then. All we can see is that there was some speculation along these lines and anxiety among some unknown fraction of the public.

However, we CAN say that Ramey on June 30 when interviewed about the saucers did not know what Kenneth Arnold would publicly state a week later, that he thought they were ET if they weren't a military secret weapon. Ramey, in conjunction with his intel chief Kalberer's saucer and ET debunking remarks, were not prompted by Arnold's still inner thoughts, although they did attempt to debunk his sighting as based on mistaken estimates of speed.

More likely they were prompted by various well-publicized sightings in West Texas (El Paso) and White Sands on June 27 and June 29. This also resulted in White Sands base commander Col. Harold Turner issuing debunking remarks that people were instead seeing meteors that were coming closer to earth at that time of year and brightly reflecting the sun's rays.

David Rudiak said...

Main AP story on Ramey CBS TV interview:
"Maj. Gen. Roger M. Ramey, the Air Force 'saucer man,' said today six years of flying saucer reports had 'reasonably well' convinced him there is no such thing."

Another AP version:
"Maj. Gen. Roger M. Ramey, who heads the Air Force's investigation of the current rash of reports, said six years of study have convinced him 'reasonably well' there is no such thing."

There are two basic ways to interpret these paraphrased statements: 1) Ramey was saying he had been studying them for six years, which would date back to 1946, the time of the European ghost rockets; 2) He and others had been studying reports that dated back six years, or to 1946, but Ramey personally had not be studying them for a total of six years.

The stories also have Ramey saying that the USAF had been collecting reports since 1947. Then adding, "Not one of some 1,500 saucer reports since 1947, ... offered solid evidence that anything material was involved. And all the reports taken together... did not establish any pattern that could be construed as menacing."

Sounds like he was claiming to have reviewed all 1500 reports collected since 1947.

We also know for a fact that Ramey was making statements about them in June/July 1947 that are in the public record, including the debunking of the Roswell flying disc on July 8. But a week plus before Roswell, he and his intel chief were debunking the saucers, the Kenneth Arnold sighting, and the notion that they might be ET.

In 1950, Ramey was kicked upstairs to the Pentagon to become the USAF Chief of Operations. Duties of the position included ordering jet scrambles on UFOs (which Samford and Ramey admitted in the big press conference of July 29, 1952 amounting to around 300 such scrambles, or roughly one a week on average, supposedly chasing nothing material).

Another duty of Ramey's as Chief of Operations would be overseeing of so-called CIRVIS reports (Communications Instructions For Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings), i.e. any sighting considered to have national security implications. This could include conventional aircraft sightings, but also included UFO sightings (i.e., military sightings that clearly were not conventional aircraft).

The subject came up again in 1954 when Ramey was being interviewed by reporter Jack Anderson for the Sunday newspapers' Parade Magazine. Ramey in debunking mode said the best flying saucer report he had read was a lady in path complaining that a flying saucer watched her bathing. But Anderson then commented:

"But not all reports are false alarms. Each year our radar net picks up 10 to 12 unidentified planes. The only Soviet plane ever physically sighted was a bomber that ventured out over the Aleutians last year. A jet fighter, sent up to investigate, chased it away."

Or, in other words, everything else picked up on radar over the years remained unidentified. There are such things as radar ghosts, but these are usually easily identifiable and not cause for ordering a jet intercept. Solid, discrete returns, however, DO indicate something material and reason for concern if not identifiable.

In 1956, Ramey was to assume command of the Air Defence Command, who by then were doing most of the UFO investigations of the important cases (not Blue Book) through the recently created 4602nd AISS (Air Intelligence Squadron). The ADC also did most of the jet interceptions of UFOs. So again, we see where Ramey would have been largely responsible for overseeing investigation of UFOs and responding to them. He would have been, except his career was cut short by a heart attack, and he retired shortly thereafter.

Don Maor said...

Thanks David for the historical insights.

Certainly Ramey fell in an impressive contradiction by informing to the public that he was convinced that UFOs were not made of anything material, but at the same time admitting they ordered jets to pursue UFOs about 300 times. Why would you send a jet plane to pursue something immaterial? This contradiction must be explained. Ramey was not so stupid as to fall in contradictions of such caliber without a reason.

It seems to me that Ramey knew well that jets had some nonzero probability of shooting down a UFO. Ramey knew that UFO crashes were possible, he tackled the Roswell incident. The potential benefits of shooting down a UFO would largely outweigh the risks of the mentioned contradiction.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Wouldn't Ramey have heard about this ufo sighting over the Hanford nuclear plant in June 1945?
"A famous incident that occurred in 1945 took place near a nuclear power plant which was being operated secretly at Hanover, Washington, toward the end of the Second World War. A pilot named Roland D. Powell had been stationed at a U.S. Naval Air Station at nearby Pasco, Washington, and was one of six pilots who had been scrambled in July of 1945 after radar detected an object moving toward the nuclear plant. The craft had been observed by Powell and his company hovering over the facility at an altitude of approximately 65,000 feet, a feat which known aircraft at the time could not have managed.

The object Powell and the others observed appeared to be large, oval shaped, metallic, and giving off a pinkish hue. The object, which was approximately three times larger than an aircraft carrier, remained in the sky for close to 20 minutes as the pilots attempted to fly high enough to observe it more closely, and eventually the object, whatever it had been, vanished by ascending straight upward at a high rate of speed.

Military and aerospace historian Michael Schratt, writing about the incident in the January 2012 edition of OpenMinds Magazine, recounted another peculiar element to the object: the fact that it may have employed a crude sort of “cloaking” mechanism: Powell and the other pilots reported seeing vapors of some kind being emitted from the edges of the craft, which Schratt notes had seemed to be used for purposes of concealment."

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2013/08/early-incidents-a-1945-nuclear-plant-ufo-encounter/#disqus_thread

Jeanne Ruppert said...

re Hanford event, see also
http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-hanford45.htm

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Also see Robert Hastings related report concerning other sightings and scrambles around Hanford in 1945: http://www.theufochronicles.com/2009/08/former-world-war-ii-fighter-pilot-bud.html

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Hanford today: https://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/presstv-more-nuclear-sludge-leaking-at-hanford-site/

cda said...

All DR and Don have established is what I wrote earlier, namely that Gen Ramey had no involvement with either the foo fighters or the Scandinavian ghost rockets. Unless some documentary evidence is produced that he was involved, I propose we close this debate on Ramey.

His involvement with UFOs dated from Arnold and not before.

His involvement with the Roswell cover-up (as DR sees it) clearly did not affect his views expressed in '52 and '56.

My conclusion is that Ramey's 6-year claim is merely an unimportant and trivial exaggeration.

Oh, and I am positive (VERY positive) that he did NOT take some great unearthly Roswell secret to his grave either.

Why are we discussing Ramey anyway?
Only because some journalist once called him a "saucer expert" in 1952.

Don Maor said...

After reading Friedman's declarations regarding the slides , it seems that he has put the slides topic in his gray basket and will cautiously remain as public. That is, in my opinion, a wise decision. Friedman is about 80, his eyesight is probably not the same as it was in his youth, and a good eyesight is determinant regarding the images on the slides. The clarity of the images will be decisive in my own final opinion of the slides.

Another thing is that Friedman
is an innate fact checker, he probably believes that there is not enough time from now to "May 5" to make himself a fast-track verification of things mentioned by the slide investigators team. Perhaps the slide team asked for Friedman's help too late, I don't know.

Regards,

Tim Hebert said...

Typical off topic ramblings...forgotten is Kevin's post concerning Friedman's dumping on the slides and his refusal to attend the May 5th "expose."

I do take note that Don Moar's last comment does attempt to discuss Friedman's views...for a change.

cda said...

Don:

Whilst a good eyesight is needed to physically examine the slides, this is probably not the most important factor. Of greater import is the origin and background of these slides, who has handled them over the years and the true date, location and circumstances surrounding them.

I do not hold out any prospect whatever that they will change our view of life in the universe or of ET existence.

Although Stan Friedman certainly supports a lot of dubious UFO cases and themes (Aztec, the Hills, Roswell, MJ-12, Flatwoods, etc) he emphatically rejected the alien autopsy film immediately it appeared, and he may well feel the same over the slides but, as a strong Roswell ET believer, is reluctant to say so.

As for getting off topic, there is nothing new in that!

bobsc said...

Don;

My guess is that Friedman is more than cautious, and recognizes from everything he has learned about it that the May 5th Roswell revival meeting just doesn't pass the 'smell test'.

Because the reality is that a photographic image (whether an 'alien' or something else), especially one as ‘fuzzily’ documented as this one, will never suffice as evidence for the reasonably skeptical public.

Tim;
Regarding the Roswell slides, as Gen. Garnett is reported to have said when the plan for Pickett's charge was disclosed to him is an appropriate comment: "This is a desperate thing to attempt." (Yes, I noted from your profile we share similar interests, including favorite movies)

Tim Hebert said...

bobsc,

Bless you!

David Rudiak said...

CDA wrote:
All DR and Don have established is what I wrote earlier, namely that Gen Ramey had no involvement with either the foo fighters or the Scandinavian ghost rockets. Unless some documentary evidence is produced that he was involved, I propose we close this debate on Ramey.

I never said Ramey was personally involved in investigating anything pre-1947. What I said was that Ramey, called one of the USAF's top saucer experts in 1952, was quoted saying that his views were based on studying the subject going back 6 years, or to 1946.

The ghost rockets of 1946 certainly were investigated by U.S. military and central intelligence, and are mentioned later in air intelligence documents and also the newspapers.

E.g., the 1948 Top Secret "ghost of the Estimate", a watered down version of Project Sign's infamous 1948 Estimate of the Situation saying they thought the saucers were extraterrestrial, references the ghost rockets three times in the report:

http://www.project1947.com/fig/1948air.htm

"The possibility exists that the reporting of flying objects may have been influenced by earlier reports on similar incidents in Scandinavia and Central Europe. The publication in newspaper of details on such incidents, both foreign and domestic, may have induced some of the description provided in reported domestic incidents."

"It will be remembered that strange objects first appeared over the Scandinavian countries in 1946. The objects observed there had unusual range and unusual performance characteristics. As this demonstration over the Scandinavian Countries occurred the U.S. was making a vigorous campaign for the economic and political alignment of these nations with other pro-American Western European nations. When these incidents subsided, strange flying objects began to be observed at an increasing rate over the U.S..."

I also previously linked to a 1948 Top Secret USAF Europe air intelligence document mentioning the ghost rockets, and how Swedish air intelligence experts thought they (and the saucers) were extraterrestrial. USAF air intelligence was well aware of the ghost rockets.

His involvement with UFOs dated from Arnold and not before.

Never said otherwise, and so what if he wasn't directly involved previously? My point has been that Ramey's history shows he held high positions where his job was to deal with the UFO question (starting in 1947, then USAF Chief of Operations starting 1950, and designated Chief of the Air Defence Command 1956).

He also indicated that his supposed views that UFOs were not a threat and had no material existence were based on a review of all cases. His research would have been rather shallow if he wasn't aware of the full history of UFOs, including the ghost rockets mentioned in various air intelligence documents and the newspapers.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

bobsc wrote: "This is a desperate thing to attempt."

Perhaps from a limited point of view in which what is most interesting in the ufo field is the rough and tumble of debate such as we see here. In the context of this debate as it goes on in internet blogs, many individuals would prefer to avoid massive and punitive criticism both of their work and of themselves. Fortunately, in my opinion, Carey and Schmitt are indifferent to this kind of thing.

On the chance that these slides add to the accumulation of information concerning the Roswell event and shed light on what was behind the sudden pressure of the first wave of ufo sightings in this country, these slides should certainly have been investigated, and we are potentially in debt to the research carried out on them by these two principal investigators. More research will doubtless follow, and we might learn something more tangible about events such as the one at Roswell in 1947 and other reported crashes and recoveries in that period of which less is presently known.

Given the nature of much of what's been expressed here over the last few months and in general in internet ufo blogs and forums concerning these slides, avoiding more of the same hostile criticism and slander is most understandable by those not already committed to the coming presentation on May 5. It is certainly understandable that Stanton Friedman would decide to stand back from the presentation in Mexico City given the vicious reactions he's received to his formidable contributions to ufo research over the years (and increasingly, it seems, by internet skeptics and debunkers). As he is still recovering from a heart attack, I'm glad he's standing back from the stress of this event and its inevitable aftermath. We need him here in the future, continuing to contribute to the attempt to understand the nature of ufo phenomena, which I'd thought most people here would recognize as an unanswered and pressing question. We also need his considered opinion, and others' as well, concerning these slides after the presentation of Carey and Schmitt's research is delivered.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

David Rudiak said: "His research would have been rather shallow if he wasn't aware of the full history of UFOs, including the ghost rockets mentioned in various air intelligence documents and the newspapers."

Indeed. If he positioned himself after Roswell to become an 'expert' on the ufo phenomenon (or was being positioned for that role by the Air Force or the Pentagon) he would also have researched (or have presented to him the research concerning) the foo fighter phenomena and the information concerning ufo visitations over such sites as Hanford and at Trinity. He might also have been given the information both Churchill and Roosevelt received concerning not BOLS but unknown and anomalous aerial craft reported by several pilots during the war.

David Rudiak said...

Jeanne,

The UFO reports, as noted by many, certainly precede 1946 or 1947, including the so-called "Foo Fighters" of WWII. That is the first time we know the U.S. military investigating the phenomenon. I'm surprised Gen. Ramey didn't admit the subject had been studied for more than 6 years.

His CBS TV interview was very strange. As USAF Chief of Operations, he ordered UFO jet scrambles, including the ones only days earlier over Washington DC, when UFOs were picked up on radar AND sighted visually. In fact, in his press conference with Gen. Samford a week later, he admitted to 300 such intercepts, claiming nothing was ever found.

According to Leonard Stringfield in his "Situation Red", when he was collating sighting reports in the mid-1950s and reporting to Wright-Patterson to assist their UFO investigations, W-P would only scramble jets if UFOs were sighted visually AND and on radar. In other words, they wanted to be sure they weren't perhaps chasing radar ghosts.

But Ramey claimed UFOs had no material existence. It's kind of hard to pick them up on radar and visually if they have no material existence. What were they chasing anyway?

Ramey said they definitely weren't made by us or the Russians, weren't ET, probably some natural atmospheric phenomenon and had no material existence. Oh, and BTW, he was also quite sure they had no "hostile intent".

Is that last part even remotely necessary given the other statements about not being made by any sentient being and just natural phenomena? It's like denying lightning and rainbows have any "hostile intent."

Gen. Ramey doth protesteth too much, IMHO.

It get's more bizarre than that, because the USAF on the same day as the Samford/Ramey press conference also admitted to being under a "shoot-down" order, saying their jet pilots had orders to shoot down the saucers if they couldn't talk them down. Since when do you issue orders to shoot down "non-material" "natural phenomena" with "no hostile intent"? How do you talk natural phenomena down? It's just self-contradictory doubletalk.

One last thought, Donald Keyhoe WAS at that large July 29, 1952, Pentagon press conference with Gen's Samford and Ramey. In 1977, reporter Bob Pratt was trying to track down Ramey, having been tipped off by a USAF Brig. General (perhaps Arthur Exon) that Ramey was actually a believer that UFOs were ET, despite public comments to the contrary.

Pratt was unaware that Ramey had died in 1963, and was unable to get anything out of the Pentagon, who claimed Ramey wasn't in their list of generals (what Pratt called "losing Ramey").

Anyway, Keyhoe said he spoke to Ramey after the press conference and commented: "Ramey was very polite and certainly very smart. He managed to evade the pointed nature of each question and somehow seemed to be covering it anyway (Keyhoe chuckled), but of course that was because he had to. He was under orders like all the rest of them..."

And that was basically what Ramey did when interviewed a few days later on TV: a lot of doubletalk and evasion on display.

Don Maor said...

Being the "6 years" announcement more clear by now, I am still somewhat baffled by the fact Ramey was debunking the ET explanation for the 24 june Arnold's shighting in June 30. Was it just a mere coincidence that a week later Ramey himself was to be in charge of debunking or at least managing the Roswell affair?. It is possible it was mere coincidence, but I don't like it.

KRandle said...

All -

You all force me to plug my book, The Government UFO Files, because in it is information that suggests an unofficial investigation began at Wright Field in December 1946... months before Arnold. The information about Ramey is additional evidence about this earlier and again, unofficial investigation.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote:
You all force me to plug my book, The Government UFO Files, because in it is information that suggests an unofficial investigation began at Wright Field in December 1946... months before Arnold. The information about Ramey is additional evidence about this earlier and again, unofficial investigation.

Kevin, this also reminds me of what Wendy Connors once told me. She had interviewed a surviving secretary of Project Sign's, who told her a group then called "Project Saucer" was unofficially investigating UFO cases back in 1946 at Wright Field. "Project Saucer" was also what Project Sign was called unofficially.

Looking over the late Joel Carpenter's excellent ghost rocket chronology at Project 1947, I also came across a 1946 "disc" reference, a pre-Arnold one you said you were looking for:

http://www.project1947.com/gr/grchron2.htm

14 Aug 46 - Swedish AF Lt and flt observer aboard B 18 a/c on training flt near Vasteras. Rocket-like object appeared three or four miles away. "It was not an airplane. It was definitely a cigar - or disc seen from its side. When I tried to increase my speed it just flew away. I couldn't get any closer." Ghost Rocket committee investigates and cannot solve.

I would suggest anybody SERIOUSLY interested in the topic to at least skim through Joel's chronology, where you will clearly see considerable interest in the ghost rockets by various military air intelligence services, including the U.S. and Britain. Also note the newspaper stories, such as those in the New York Times. This is all well pre-Arnold.

And finally, have a look at the trajectory plots on radar of some of the ghost rockets, executing extreme maneuverability, creating complex trajectories. This was well beyond any rocketry of the day. They didn't have modern cruise missiles back in 1946.

In addition, it was noted that the ghost rockets were self-destructing and left nothing recognizable behind. (So much for James Carrion and his rather absurd theory that these were actually hundreds of U.S. rockets being fired to stir up anti-Soviet fears among the Swedes.)