Saturday, September 26, 2015

Ramey Memo Update

The best case of provenance that I have ever seen is the Ramey Memo. We have a picture of Ramey holding the document, we have been able to interview the photographer, and we know the date on which it was taken because we have not only a dated document that was transmitted with the picture, but it appeared in newspapers around the country the next day. The only point of dispute is what the memo actually says. Parts of it are easily read and others are obscured to the point where it is sometimes just a best guess. If the memo could be completely deciphered it might provide a clue about what fell near Roswell and would be some of the best documentation available.
This might be the first time that the entire negative'
has been printed in decades. Photo copyright
University of Texas at Arlington, Special Collections.

The answer always seemed tantalizing close but just out of reach. The ability of equipment and software to pull information off the photograph just wasn’t good enough to do it in the 1990s. Scans had been made years ago from the original negatives but newer equipment and better software might have changed all that. Martin Dreyer, a researcher living in New Zealand, was interested in the memo and believed that modern equipment might be able to pull something new from the negative. He began to work toward that aim.

For almost two years, he talked to various experts in photography, software and those who had great experience in recovering information hidden in photographic negatives. The consensus seemed to be that it would be possible to extract more and better information from the memo using a variety of these new and modern techniques.

The next step was to learn if the University of Texas at Arlington Special Collections would allow the negative to be subjected to another round of scrutiny. Although interested in learning what might be found, they were also concerned with the process. They didn’t want to damage negative any further. The handling of it as well as subjecting it to scans in the past caused it to acquire some scratches and a little dirt but they were assured that this new analysis would be nondestructive.

Brenda S. McClurkin was the contact at UTA and provided a great deal of assistance in getting the permissions to have the negative scanned using a variety of techniques and equipment. She arranged for the use of photographic microscope at UTA that could read the negative.

At the end of April 2015 David Rudiak traveled to the Dallas – Fort Worth area and to the University of Texas at Arlington. Working with those at UTA, as well as some independent experts in photography and forensic analysis, they made dozens of new scans under a variety of conditions hoping to clarify the memo enough that a consensus of the wording could be formed. Some of the letters were lost in the debris on the negative and in the fact that the memo was slightly folded and parts of it were not directly facing the camera. Had J. Bond Johnson, the original photographer, been a foot closer the image might have been easily resolved.

It had been hoped that the new techniques would produce immediate results but that didn’t happen. The photographic process used only cleaned up the memo marginally. There was no new and great revelation. That suggested that the application of software was needed, which, unfortunately could lead to claims that the image had been manipulated to produce specific results.

After the disappointment with the results, and after seeing the results of the Roswell Slides Research Group’s success in reading the placard in front of the image on those slides, it was decided to open the analysis to a wider audience. The original idea had been to release the best results with all the information about the resolution of the image but now that moved into a new arena. With the cooperation of those at UTA, and at their suggestion, the best of the scans will be posted to various locations on the Internet, and as soon as possible to this blog along with the links to those other images.


Again, the work has been less than spectacular. It seems that the image has been cleaned up to a small degree but not to the point where what are considered the critical areas could be read.  Work is continuing, but it is painstakingly slow and as mentioned, disappointing. The hope now is that if the images are put up in open source that the same thing that happened with the (Not) Roswell Slides can be accomplished with the Ramey memo. Maybe someone will have the right software or have a new idea about the way to attack this that will allow the memo to be read. At the moment we are not much closer to a solution than we were. It is still just beyond our grasp. 

82 comments:

TheDimov said...

Wow, I didn't realise there was another effort taking place to try and decipher the memo. Its so painfully tantalisingly close, if only a few more words could be deciphered.

Thanks so much for your great work Kevin, these Roswell updates are fantastic.

Stephen Jackson said...

Call me naive but would it have been protocol or even wise to be holding a potentially top secret memo at a press conference in front of photographers?

KRandle said...

Stephen -

That is precisely the argument I have raised in the past. It seems unlikely, but then before David Rudiak can remind us, there have been examples of highly classified documents in the hands of highly placed government officials that have been inadvertently photographed by the press compromising code words and classified information.

There is enough easily readable on the memo that we know it relates to something at fort Worth and there is a mention of weather balloons. There is general agreement that the word disk appears on the document. It just seems if we could read what it said with any degree of agreement, we might find an answer to some of our questions... so the attempt is being made. We hope to resolve the disagreements but I fear that we're just a little short of being able to do that.

Brian Bell said...

If anyone including DR is convinced Ramey is holding a top secret memo at a press conference he ordered with an intention of a massive alien spaceship coverup then by reason of that logic one simply is endorsing "the druling idiot" scenario they claim isn't possible.

Brice said...

Brian said :

"If anyone including DR is convinced Ramey is holding a top secret memo at a press conference he ordered with an intention of a massive alien spaceship coverup then by reason of that logic one simply is endorsing "the druling idiot" scenario they claim isn't possible."

One would indeed believe it would be quite unlikely. Now as for me, Kevin said it all above. Since the work has already got started and that it showed there is some general agreement on "key words" contained in the memo, it appears to be a track worth pursuing, whatever it would lead to.

cda said...

One simple matter: If perchance this infamous piece of paper DOES contain information of cosmic importance (i.e. revealing the presence of ETs on our planet), is it not almost certain that it would have been retained and is still available somewhere, rather than just destroyed?

What about an FOIA request for it, or has that already been done? Also, what about the myriad of other, related, cosmic documents that surely exist on this incident? Where might they be? Any ideas?

KRandle said...

All -

Actually, this wasn't a press conference but a single reporter in the room at the time. It might be that what Ramey holds is nothing more than the teletype message that came over the news wire and that J. Bond Johnson brought with him. It might be something from the military message center that refers to what is being discussed by the news media at the time or it might be something of a more interesting nature. The thought is, if we can read it with any degree of certainty then we might find something interesting or we might learn that it has little real value. Do not understand the negativity here since we're attempting to resolve this one little mystery now...

And FOIA has an Achilles Heel that is known as national security. By invoking national security those holding the documents are not required to release them. Of course there is always the question of which agency to FOIA, which office to FOIA and what specific question to be asked. Without that they can also claim that they hold no documents that are relevant to the claim.

cda said...

I agree with Kevin that the said document may contain information of interest to Roswell researchers, i.e. something that was perviously unknown. Therefore it possibly is worth deciphering, even now.

It is this obsession with it being top secret and of 'cosmic importance' that really gets me. How can vital secrets of the universe be contained in this one flimsy piece of paper that an AF general has in his hand and is now nowhere to be found? What causes people to believe such preposterous nonsense? These people ought to concentrate on locating the real documents, if such exist. But of course they don't exist, do they?

And no they would not still be top secret after nearly 7 decades either. Not on a topic of this nature and importance to science.

Isaac Koi said...

Kevin Randle wrote in response to Stephen Jackson : " before David Rudiak can remind us, there have been examples of highly classified documents in the hands of highly placed government officials that have been inadvertently photographed by the press compromising code words and classified information".

For Stephen's benefit, I thought I'd just pop in here to give a link to one of the places where David Rudiak had previously posted "instances where people who were very security conscious blurted out high secrets or allowed sensitive material to be photographed" :
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/ramey-memo-and-barry-greenwood.html?showComment=1253319212749#c4936551920580185303


Brian Bell said...

As stated before there are still problems even if the memo was fully deciphered:

1) "...you forwarded..."
2) "..victims..."
3) "..disk.."

"Disk" doesn't mean "alien spaceship". "Victims", if it's even there, is not a word commonly used in military terminology for air crew of any kind, but is a word used by media quite frequently.

And of course "...you forwarded.." Makes no sense at all.

But it will be interesting to see if anything more becomes of it.

Wind Swords said...

Hi Kevin,

No negativity here, I look forward to seeing some progress made with the Ramey memo. I just hope that whatever it says can be deciphered conclusively like the (Not) Roswell Slides placard otherwise we will be back to arguing different interpretations of the findings.

Stephen Jackson said...

Kevin -

Thank you for the reply. I have another question for you if you don't mind.

Are you ready for an answer if the memo yields one? I'm on the fence with what happened at Roswell. The fantastical idea that aliens crashed and a coverup ensued is captivating. The "Did they, didn't they" mystery keeps Roswell as a story I like to follow. Having an answer will kind of spoil it for me, unless of course the answer is ET's.

How would such a revelation impact you and would it spoil the saga for you and feel something missing in ufology if it was something mundane?

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Ron Regehr and a coauthor (whose name I don't recollect) are reportedly nearing completion and publication of a book on Roswell in which the Ramey memo is further analyzed and which also includes analysis of an eighth photograph of debris in Ramey's office that has (possibly) not been analyzed before.

Wind Swords said...

Jeanne,

I listened to an interview of Regehr on the Paracast. He is definitely an ET advocate for Roswell but I'm interested in what, if anything, he finds in regards to the photos or the Ramey memo.

Isaac Koi said...

Jeanne Ruppert said "Ron Regehr and a coauthor (whose name I don't recollect) are reportedly nearing completion and publication of a book on Roswell in which the Ramey memo is further analyzed".

The name of Ron Regehr's co-author that Jeanne could not recall is Neil Morris of the UK. Neil Morris used to have a UFO website, some of which can be recovered using the Wayback Machine's Internet Archive at
https://web.archive.org/web/20001109181900/http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/

Also, Neil was a member of RPIT (the "Roswell Photo Interpretation Team") - which has a small website at: http://www.abcfield.force9.co.uk/rpit/index.html

Paul Young said...

CDA..."And no they would not still be top secret after nearly 7 decades either. Not on a topic of this nature and importance to science."


As I've mentioned previously, it's not unusual for our governments to keep files secret from the public for decades.
Only recently I was reading that there are plenty of files regarding the assassination of U.S President Kennedy that are locked away despite many request that they be open.
The UK's "30 year rule" only applies when the "powers that be" LET them apply. (As we discussed on a previous thread here concerning the Whitechapel Murders...aka Jack the Ripper)...where the files have been kept secret since 1888.

Basically, they can prevent us looking at files indefinitely. (and we, supposedly, live in the free world.)

Need to Know is the name of the game CDA...and you and me, unfortunately, aren't deemed to have it.

gilgamesh_says said...

In regards to whether or not the General should be holding a "top secrete" memo while at a press conference I offer the following:
It had always occurred to me that the reason he was holding that in his hand was because it contained specific instructions as to exactly what was supposed to take place at that press conference. In fact, the way in which he is holding it suggests he may be referring to it as a guide to make sure he hits certain talking points throughout the press conference.

Brian Bell said...

@ Gilgamesh

Indeed a possibility. IMO the telegraph is something media related, not a TS goverment correspondence.

albert said...

"...The handling of it as well as subjecting it to scans in the past caused it to acquire some scratches and a little dirt but they were assured that this new analysis would be nondestructive...."
.
I've developed and printed hundreds of negatives as a photo lab tech and photographer. This makes me wonder about the degree of expertise, if any, of the previous 'handlers'. IIRC, it's a 4 x 5 negative. They are quite easy to develop and handle, and still keep dirt and scratch free.
.
I do look forward to the results. Can we say this new analysis is a direct result of the Not Roswell Slides Debacle? If so, then that's one positive result.
. .. . .. _ _ _

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote: (1 of 2)
Again, the work has been less than spectacular. It seems that the image has been cleaned up to a small degree but not to the point where what are considered the critical areas could be read.

I wouldn't word it quite that way. As far as I'm concerned, some critical areas HAVE been read, in that there is consensus (sometimes unanimous) on what the words are from about 10 different readers. Rather it is a case that that it can't be read to EVERYONE'S satisfaction. No matter what is done, I seriously doubt the skeptobunkers will ever acknowledge certain readings. (Of course the most critical ones being "THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK" and "IN THE 'DISC'", though there are other important words.)

In addition, rather than just going on human eyeballs and possible prejudice, I have done a very time-consuming read by computer with an optical character recognition program to rank relative probabilities of letters, and from that deduce the relative probability of proposed words. This is as close to an objective read as you are going to get, because computer programs don’t have emotional stakes in the outcome.

One test of whether the program was working properly or not was to run controls on unanimously agreed upon works/phrases "WEATHER BALLOONS" and "AT FORT WORTH, TEX." For "WEATHER BALLOONS" (WB), 7 out of 8 letters tested in the top 2 probability letters. Only the "H" tested poorly (#13). "BALLOONS" wasn't as good, but still 3 letters tested #1 and one letter #3. Overall, 6 of 8 letters were in the top quarter (top 6 letters). Only one tested very poorly at #19 (the second very indistinct "O"). The overall average letter ranking from both words was 5.2. If you tossed out the two worst letters ("H" and "O") as not being representative, then the average letter ranking was 3.5.

I got very similar results for "AT FORT WORTH, TEX." (AFWT) Average letter ranking was 4.8 and tossing out two poorly correlated outliers, the average was 3.1.

What I found from experience was that with the Ramey memo, if 2/3’s or more of the letters tested in the top quartile and the overall average was about 5.0 or better, it should be treated as a serious candidate word if it made sense in the context of the letter and words around it. (Thus one can filter out improper parts of speech or words that make no sense in proper context.)

Applying the same to the "VICTIMS" word, VICTIMS gave very similar results as WB and AFWT of 5.1 average and 2.8, if the the completely indistinct, unreadable 4th letter was tossed out as skewing the results of VICTIMS as well as most competing words.

What about competing words that have been (seriously) proposed, including two very similar nonsense words used as controls (VIRGINS and VIOLINS)? Here are the relative rankings, first using all letters, including the 4th letter, then tossing out the 4th letter:

All letters:
VIRGINS (4.7), VICTIMS (5.1), FINDING (5.6), VENTING (5.7), REMAINS (8.3), VIOLINS (8.4), VIEWING (8.6)

Without unreadable #4 letter:
VICTIMS (2.8), VENTING (3.5), VIRGINS (4.7), FINDING (5.2), REMAINS (5.8), VIOLINS (6.2), VIEWING (7.0)

It is notable here that VICTIMS has the highest number of top-ranking letters of all these words, with 6 of 7 letters testing in the top 5, 4 of 7 testing top 3. It gets dragged down a bit because the "T" at the #4 unreadable letter position tests poorly at #19 (also drags down VENTING). Nonsense word VIRGINS gets pulled up because its #4 letter tests well (#5), skewing the average. The letters are ranked relative to one another, so a bad data point, like the #4 letter ranking can skew results. E.g., if you look at a similar 7-letter word WEATHER, 6 of 7 letters are top-2 letters, with "H" testing #13, dragging the average down to 3.0 (still very good). Toss out "H", and the average is a stellar 1.3.

David Rudiak said...

(part 2 of 2)

Scientific experiments commonly throw out apparent outliers as spurious results, but whether such data is retained or not in computing statistical averages and margins of error is a judgment call.

Next note that the more commonly proposed mundane words of REMAINS, FINDING, and VIEWING do not test nearly as well as VICTIMS (especially REMAINS and FINDING). VICTIMS is far superior to all of them if you toss out the #4 letter.

There is a lot of overlap in the letters of all these words (which alone indicates people aren't just reading by prejudice but by what they think they see, otherwise ANY 7 letter word would have been proposed here). It is notable that a key discriminating letter in FINDING and REMAINS vs. all the other words starting with "V", namely the first letter, tests poorly compared to "V": "F" is #11 and "R" is #8, while "V" is #2. People aren't just imagining seeing a "V" there.

VIRGINS and VENTING are the two top competing words to VICTIMS, VIRGINS varyiing by only 3 letters in spelling, VENTING by 4. VIRGINS can be readily filtered out by context. It obviously doesn't belong here. This leaves VENTING as the top competing word. But then you have to ask the question, if this were a balloon/RAWIN target being discussed, why would there be discussion of the venting of a RAWIN (which doesn't vent) ? Weather balloons can "vent" when filled with helium gas, but why would such a trivial and unimportant thing be discussed here? Ramey's balloon wasn't even inflated.

On the other hand, if something like a wrecked craft were venting something noxious, like radiation, yes, that would be a topic of importance and possible discussion, making VENTING a possible choice (at least in isolation from the rest of the message), but then we are a VERY long way from the deflated weather balloon and radar target balsa wood kite in Gen. Ramey's office. We are into Brian Bell’s (and others) “secret military experiment” theory. (Now if only they could provide something called evidence to support that.)

Of course, something else entirely like “THE ‘DISC’”, discussed in the next sentence of the message, might also vent something noxious. (Yes, and “DISC” is absolutely there whether the skeptobunkers want to acknowledge it or not).

David Rudiak said...

KEVIN: "...The handling of it as well as subjecting it to scans in the past caused it to acquire some scratches and a little dirt but they were assured that this new analysis would be nondestructive...."
.
ALBERT: "I've developed and printed hundreds of negatives as a photo lab tech and photographer. This makes me wonder about the degree of expertise, if any, of the previous 'handlers'. IIRC, it's a 4 x 5 negative. They are quite easy to develop and handle, and still keep dirt and scratch free."

The Ramey memo negative has been handled extensively to make new prints and blowups of the message because of high demand. In fact, it is the single most requested photo out of the millions that the Univ. of Texas, Arlington, has archived. This has resulted in some scratches (which haven't done serious damage) and dirt (partially obscured one or two letters while we were there).

One of our photo experts ("Jerry"), wanted to clean the negative first, but this was refused for fear of causing damage to the negative (though Jerry said it wouldn't). When we put it under a biomicrosope, they were also hesitant for Jerry to use his LED lightbox underneath until he demonstrated it was a "cool lightbox" and put out no heat of note. They are VERY protective of the negative, but extensive handling over the last 20 years by who knows how many photo techs in the university photo lab has caused a little bit of damage.

Visual examination by our two experts of all the Ramey/Roswell negatives (four) that UTA has in their collection revealed that they are all in early stages of deterioration, with the edges beginning to fog and with the film giving off a slight vinegary smell of acetic acid from the deteriorating acetate film base. Nonetheless, the memo portion near the center of the film is still in very good shape showing no signs of deterioration.

To slow deterioration of all their old negatives, we were told UTA was nearing completion of a refrigerated room with humidity control which head archivist Brenda McClurkin informed us should extend the lifetime of the negatives to 500 years!
.
"I do look forward to the results. Can we say this new analysis is a direct result of the Not Roswell Slides Debacle? If so, then that's one positive result."

Some image processing has been done by one of our experts (with what I would say is only marginally improved results) and further analysis will be done by me at least. This newer effort by us only coincidentally occurred during the Slides debate and would have been done even without it.

Lance has privately expressed interest and I have already given him access to what I consider are the best of our new images (off a very high resolution digital microfiche machine in multiple steps of lightness). This was after I pointed out to him that they were claiming (and getting) very high success in reading the entire "Roswell" slide placard even though most of the words were not particularly distinct and they were using the same sort of linguistic reading of text (grammar, spelling, word length, commonly used short words (the, of, in, etc.), context (knowledge of this being a description of a mummy in a museum), sensibility, etc. that I said could also be applied to the Ramey memo to resolve ambiguity of readings (and which I have advocated and used for a long time).

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Wind Swords said...

Jeanne,

"I listened to an interview of Regehr on the Paracast. He is definitely an ET advocate for Roswell but I'm interested in what, if anything, he finds in regards to the photos or the Ramey memo."

I'm more interested in what he knows about the history of ufos ('uncorrelated phenomena'in NORAD and DSP terms) that inclines him to pursue the question of what happened at/near Roswell.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

I wrote:

"I'm more interested in what he knows about the history of ufos ('uncorrelated phenomena'in NORAD and DSP terms) that inclines him to pursue the question of what happened at/near Roswell."

'Uncorrelated phenomena'is not the NORAD/DSP language, which is instead 'uncorrelated targets'. I think the word 'phenomena' {i.e., phenomena uncorrelated with objects recognizable to us} would be more precise, and what I think crept into what I wrote.

David Rudiak said...

Gilgamesh wrote: (1/2)

In regards to whether or not the General should be holding a "top secrete" memo while at a press conference I offer the following: It had always occurred to me that the reason he was holding that in his hand was because it contained specific instructions as to exactly what was supposed to take place at that press conference. In fact, the way in which he is holding it suggests he may be referring to it as a guide to make sure he hits certain talking points throughout the press conference.

Thank you for your comments. First I would like to note that there are four known public photos of Ramey holding the paper. (Two of Ramey alone, two of Ramey with his chief of staff Dubose) In one of these (Ramey alone), he has the paper scrunched up in his hand creating curves in the paper, which can be seen in the Ramey/Dubose photos but not in the other Ramey alone photo. (Thus we can sequence the photo order based on this detail alone.)

In three of these (both Ramey alone and one Ramey/Dubose), he has the back to the camera. Only in one has he placed the message approximately horizontal as if to sneak a glance at it. (Thus from Ramey's vantage point, the text was still facing him, not outward to the camera.) This enabled the photographer, J. Bond Johnson, standing up, to get an angle on the front of the page. (Johnson didn't even realize this was true for another 50 years, when he decided to take another look at it, resulting in the first serious concerted effort to read it--the so-called Roswell Photointerpretation Team (RPIT)).

So one point is that Ramey certainly was not trying to show the text to the camera. It was an accident, a momentary slip-up, which Ramey likewise probably didn't realize had happened. To him, he always had the text concealed or facing him.

This begs the question you raised why Ramey might have been trying to read the message again, especially if he had written it (as I and others have long thought he did, based on the signature line looking very suspiciously like "RAMEY").

One thing I noticed a long time ago is that there seemed to be some handwriting at the bottom of the message. I have a sample of Ramey's signature, which is all very tight, non-loopy letters, but this handwriting is "loopy". So I don't think it is Ramey's writing but someone else's, an aide perhaps.

Two more things to consider, Ramey's Rayban aviator sunglasses are being held in his hand left of the message (a detail I completely missed until somebody pointed it out), suggesting maybe Ramey had been outdoors before walking into his office, perhaps over at the communication center picking up a COPY of the sent memo, or maybe it was handed to him as he walked into his office. (Making such an archival copy would have been SOP.)

The second thing was who was the addressee? The address header is sharply tilted away from the camera and mostly in shadow, but down near the bottom clearly sticking out at left margin are the clear letters "VA". This has led me to believe the message was directed to acting AAF Chief of Staff Hoyt Vandenberg at the Pentagon, who newspapers reported was in contact with Ramey after the base press release because of all the furor it had raised. (Chief of Staff Gen. Spatz was out of town.)

The point here is that after the message was sent to Vandenberg, telephone follow-up may have occurred with one of Ramey's men, and some of the response may have been written down at the bottom by the aide. The bottom two lines of the memo it is generally agreed (though different people have different readings) have to do with how to publicly deal with the situation and cover it up, giving context to how "weather balloons" is used in the memo (as part of the cover story, not what was found).

David Rudiak said...

(2/2)
As I read the last two lines, it reads close to "...NEXT SENT OUT PR [press release] OF WEATHER BALLOONS WOULD WORK (or TAKE or FARE) BETTER IF PHOTOS USED AND LAND DEMORAWIN TEAMS. (The "demorawin teams" being the rawin demonstrations the military carried out the next few days to further debunk the flying discs, as reported by the newspapers again, also reporting the military was running a "concentrated campaign" to stop all the rumors.) Under this may be the handwriting, "photos yes", giving the official OK to the use of photos to bolster the weather balloon story.

Thus my conjecture is that Ramey, pressed for time to get to his photo shoot, hadn't had time to read the follow-up or plan what he was to do next. During the photo shoot, he snuck a glance maybe to ponder his next moves.

Of course, this is all pure speculation. We will never know for sure why Ramey glanced at the page or what he was thinking at that moment.

I definitely do NOT think it was a page of instructions on how to conduct his press conference. That is not how anyone reads it (including some skeptics) and that is not the format, which is address header and two paragraphs, two sentences following another in the first paragraph, and three sentences for the second, followed by the signature line. That is the format of a brief telex message from one party to another, not a list of instructions, which I would expect to be in bulleted or numbered form. The message is definitely not in this latter type of format.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

David Rudiak wrote:

" . . . Thus my conjecture is that Ramey, pressed for time to get to his photo shoot, hadn't had time to read the follow-up or plan what he was to do next. During the photo shoot, he snuck a glance maybe to ponder his next moves.

Of course, this is all pure speculation. We will never know for sure why Ramey glanced at the page or what he was thinking at that moment."

I would say it's not 'pure' (in the sense of ungrounded, abstract) speculation. Our speculations always take place within a context of what we only partially understand or know. To stand up to our own and others' critiques, our own speculations need to be coherent with what is partially understood about the context of processes, events, significations involved in the situation we are speculating about.

Your speculations here are coherent not only with what you and others have been able to read in the visible text Ramey is holding but also with what we would expect to be the pressure of the situation he was in -- i.e., responsible [in the chain of command] for the press release that came out of Roswell and responsible to his superiors in the Air Force and at the Pentagon for undoing the damage done by it. There were not days in which to provide and receive information back and forth among the principals involved in the developing situation in which to contemplate what should be done. There were only hours in which decisions had to be made and explicit instructions ordered, an hour or two or less for Ramey to receive those instructions from his superiors and to react in accordance with them. Those had to have been frantic hours for all directly involved in resolving the crisis created by the issuance of the first press release from Roswell (not to mention the larger crisis that would have been realized at the point when anomalous bodies were reported to be found at one of the crash sites).

I think your speculations about the memo Ramay was carrying around during the photo shoot and press conference are well-founded in the widely understood context of these events.

Brian Bell said...

Your claim that Ramey was given instruction by telegram on what to say or how best to cover an alien spaceship crash is only one possibility. You also claim the order to conduct orchestrated balloon demos may be contents as part of cover up.

Equally viable is the possibility the memo contains instructions on how to use a common weather balloon as a cover story for a secret project that happened to use such balloons, coupled with the need to demo balloon launches for the public to eliminate any fear of alien invasion given a bogus and incorrect press release.

There is no reason to jump to the conclusion that the memo references a crashed alien spaceship. The noun "disc" may simply be in reference to the original and incorrect statements made in the first press release.

Given that nine years earlier Welles' Mercury Theater drama caused wide spread panic (and deaths) concerning a Martian invasion, combined with a growing fear of war with the Soviets after just concluding the second largest global war in history, gives ample reason why the military would want to rescind their initial faulty press release while also maintaining secrecy regarding a project they didn't want disclosed to the Russians.

KRandle said...

Brian -

Would you care to name your sources on this? While newspapers of the time did play up the panic, the evidence for a wide spread panic seems to be anecdotal and not borne out by research. Yes, people called the newspapers, the radio stations and the police, but it seems that they were trying to gather additional information. They were not in the streets or running around armed blasting away at anything that moved. Research conducted over the decades revealed the audience for the program was relatively small, some of the reports of panic greatly exaggerated, and when the cast, which had been holed up at the CBS studios finally returned to the streets, they saw no evidence of this panic. Good solid studies published by a number of reputable organizations found that the tales of panic were inspired by newspapers that weren't being as accurate as they could. Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction caused more media activity than Welles' War of the Worlds.

And could you please provide a source about anyone dying as a result of the program. Seems that none of those deaths can be verified... though some were seem to have been reported.

Oh, and what Ramey is holding is not a telegram, but more likely a teletype message, if not from his own message center then possibly from the Star-Telegram news wires. The source of the document in his hand has not been located.

Jim Bender said...

BB's actual sources are from his alter ego that pumps out thousands and thousands of his own daily press releases.

Listen, all bloggers that can spend some time studying the mega Roswell testimonials and other facts can easily and objectively rationalize that the Roswell event of 1947 was indeed an ET event, and has nothing to do with the made up fairy tale Project Mogul(project mogul was a complete farce in the year 1947}

DEBUNKERS?SKEPTICS ask yourself why the US government waited until the mid 90's to state that there were also crush dummies included with the weather balloon debris. lololololol

UFO debunkers/skeptics are dying breed and are dying a slow death, my gosh there is even free flowing water on our closest planet Mars, I GOT NEWS FOR YOU, LIFE IS SPREAD THROUGH OUT OUR UNIVERSE AND THERE ARE BILLIONS OF PLANETS MUCH OLDER THAN EARTH, INTELLIGENT LIFE IS OUT THERE AND THEY HAVE VISITED EARTH.

goldfive said...

Fellas,

Though I am loath to admit it as a pro-ETHer, I found Brian's last post to be quite reasonable. There were no insults hurled, and no "digs" at believers or their positions.


I think it's only fair to give credit where it's due. His argument, though I do not think it comports with the totality of the circumstantal evidence, remains a possible scenario.


It's true that the word "disc" could be referring to the object everyone in Roswell was (inexplicably, but possibly I suppose) confused about, rather than an actual "disc" per se. If the rest of the document could be conclusively read, we would know one way or another. But it is still open to debate, unfortunately.

Furthermore, I was always under the impression that the Orson Welles broadcast was one of the possible motives for covering up the saucer crash, i.e. avoidance of public panic over "martians invading". If I'm not mistaken, I think Stanton Friedman may have speculated along these lines in his various Roswell writings.

Based on what Kevin has said, however, it seems that both skeptics and some pro-ETHer's (myself among them) should consider discarding the Welles broadcast as a possible impetus for the military's secretive actions in July 1947.

Brian Bell said...

Jim -

"I GOT NEWS FOR YOU, LIFE IS SPREAD THROUGH OUT OUR UNIVERSE AND THERE ARE BILLIONS OF PLANETS MUCH OLDER THAN EARTH, INTELLIGENT LIFE IS OUT THERE AND THEY HAVE VISITED EARTH".

Been abducted lately Jim? Just wondering what sources you have that can verify this other than your delusions.

Just saying...

KRandle said...

Brian -

Before you ask others for sources, don't you think you should answer that question yourself?

cda said...

Kevin:

Regarding the Orson Welles broadcast I agree that, according to analysis by later writers, the so-called 'panic' was a lot less than the newspapers claimed. One writer on this was Curtis Peebles, who also wrote a skeptical UFO book. But even Ray Palmer (a big UFO devotee) wrote that this panic, as far as he could tell, was almost non-existent, and that only a few were genuinely fooled. Another point is that during the broadcast there were the usual commercials, I believe. Hardly the sort of thing you would expect if the earth was really being invaded by Martians! Perhaps it was only, or mainly, those who tuned in late that were fooled. I don't know the answer.

Having said this, I admit I have never listened to the broadcast myself, or a repeat thereof.

Brian Bell said...

Not really Kevin. And for the record here's why.

Most of what people are asking for is already either obtainable with a little bit of effort, or they're just trying to be crass and annoying by asking someone to go chase down a rabbit hole for information so they can in return then dismiss their comments or discourage them from any further posts.

It's a nice tactic if you want to get somebody off your back. You just say, "oh go away until you find me a bunch of sources because I don't believe you anyway." It's a dismissal tactic for people interested in ignoring what they don't want to consider.

Given that on your blog even you have conjectured without any documented sources, I don't think conjecture in the conversation regarding Roswell requires absolute definitive and detailed verification of absolutely every single CONJECTURED point when it comes to ALTERNATIVE THEORY based on some factual information.

Bear in mind it's you and all of your followers who believe Roswell was the cosmic event of all time, but who also have the burden of proof on your backs. Not mine.

I think we may have pointed that out a dozen times already. If you want to convince the world, or me, that what you claim actually happened you can't tell people (or me) who don't believe your claim that we or I have to prove it never did happen. Of course that's what believers like to do: "I claim ET has arrived, I have no definitive proof only conjecture, but if you don't believe it's true because I say it is, then you have to prove my conjectured truth claim wrong." That strategy is just gaming your hypothesis to suit your needs.

If you really want a "different perspective" stand back and let people have a go at legitimate and logical counter discussion and alternative theories which are very much linked to factual data instead of trying to get them to shut up by telling them to chase down rabbit holes to prove what you believe happened or didn't happen because it doesn't match your truth claim that has not even been proven.

If anything your knowledge of Roswell should be used in a consultative, unbiased, and open dialogue fashion, rather than as a baseball bat used to intimidate others into believing what you insist must be true despite no physical evidence.

Other researchers like yourself pondered the same conundrum with the greatest of frustration. But, they ended up concluding the very same thing you call skeptics are claiming can't be so.

What happened at Roswell most definitely leans toward prosaic when all credible information is examined. If ET exists the evidence so far indicates didn't nose dive his spaceship into the sand on the Foster Ranch.

You're a smart guy Kevin, you should be able to understand that. But I think you're way too close to the subject to have any true unbiased objectivity.

This blog may be about you stepping back and thinking about all of the decades you've put into Roswell, but on a scale of reflective thought I think you only moved about 2 mm away from where you were in the 1990s.

Much of your anchor points fell apart when witnesses identified they had lied about the cornerstone of the very story you claim is real. Of course you and others base much of your remaining claims on 2nd, 3rd, and sometimes 4th hand memory deficient recollections or witnesses and researchers who still manipulate their comments to suit their agenda.

Of course not finding what you want is disappointing for anybody who spent decades of research on something they think is real.

But regardless, you and others deflect, ignore, defer, minimize or sanction certain legitimate topics or conversation points as not being eligible for commentary. Why? I can only conclude because you're trying to control the data.

In other words your bias is your Achilles heel.

albert said...

@David,
Thanks for the negative details. -We- were taught to treat every negative as a precious gem, but it only takes one ham-handed idiot....
. .. . .. _ _ _

cda said...

DR:

Do you think the phrase "victims of the wreck" is the sort of wording that would be used in a memo (or teletype) written by someone who was reporting on a crash of an aerial craft? Is it not a bit artificial or concocted?

I suggest a phrase like "bodies found in the wreckage" would be a far more likely choice of words. The word 'victims' looks artificial and out of place here, as there was no way Ramey would know whether they were indeed victims, or pilots or passengers. He might even have used the word 'humanoids'. For example the ETs may have been kamikaze pilots who deliberately crashed their craft, knowing they would perish. (Who are we to say otherwise?).

Because of this I do wonder if 'victims' is simply a word that fits (or appears to fit) the letter count, spacing and APPROXIMATELY the letter shapes that are barely visible; the main reason for believing it was 'victims' being the natural bias towards anything suggesting alien bodies. What I am saying is that if it could be finally shown that the word was something else entirely, the case for this memo holding the great ET secret would be dashed forever. Hence the desperate attempt for ETHers to hold onto the word.

I do not, however, expect any finality on deciphering this phrase, or memo, at any time. What I am certain of is that if this memo indeed gives details of a genuine ET crash it would still be available, along with a myriad of other papers on the topic. It is inconceivable, and a preposterous notion, that such evidence would STILL be top secret, and held by the military of one country.

Brian:

Yes I agree that Jim Bender is also living in cloud cuckoo land.

Neal Foy said...

albert,

I was taught the same thing but these lab techs may be students, who haven't learned proper care of negatives.

I wonder about how the film was developed, as you know Kodak recommends temperature at 68 to 72 degrees F. Newspapers were known to exceed that in order to reduce the development time in order to meet deadlines. It's called hot souping and doesn't do the contrast curve any good and can result in reticulation that may affect fine detail. Newspapers didn't care because of the screen size they used and printing on newsprint has been compared to writing on toilet paper with a Sharpie. Considering July heat in Fort Worth/Dallas and possibly lack of air conditioning in the darkroom, I think it's possible the film may have been abused in processing.

If it was hot souped detail may be lost forever.

KRandle said...

Sorry Brian but you're wrong. First, I'm under no obligation to remain neutral in these discussions and I don't understand why you would think that. I have a point of view and plan to express it.

Second, while those of us who think the alien explanation is the best answer for Roswell have an obligation to present the evidence that leads us to that conclusion, that does not absolve you of the responsibility to provide your sources when challenged. You claimed people died during the "War of the Worlds" panic but have provided no documentation for that claim.

In other instances, you were challenged and others provided the sources for you showing that elements of your claim were inaccurate.

So, while it is true that we must provide sources for our claims, you have the same responsibility for yours. Instead of answering the questions, you divert the conversation into other arenas, pose other questions and cite other alleged facts.
You complain that I stop discussions but the fact is, you often divert the topic of the post. Here, the discussion was about the Ramey Memo and you are off into the War of the Worlds. In other cases you have brought up Project Mogul when it had no relevance to that discussion. I let things range a little wide here, for which I have been criticized, but when they divert too far, I will stop them. Maybe some time, when I have nothing else to do, I’ll throw up another Mogul post and then you and David Rudiak and the others who wish, can restate all your arguments, overlooking the facts that don’t fit with your world views.

You attacked Marcel’s credibility by saying that he had claimed on a radio program that he had said he hadn’t considered that until UFO researchers called him, but the quote was not from the radio show but from a posting by Kal Korff in a news group. Have you now realized that Korff is not a credible source? And this in a posting that had nothing to do with Marcel or such matters. When challenged you took your ball and went home.

And finally, stop attempting to moderate this blog. If you wish to be a moderator, start your own where you can pontificate at will without having to worry about getting the facts right.

Jim Bender said...

It is so funny how all the skeptics/debunkers try to discredit all the military personnel and other creditable intelligent people who have made statements regarding the Roswell event of 1947 was indeed a real ET event.
We have confirmed that the Ramey memo does have the following words included in the memo (Victims, and DISC)Many of Skeptics/debunkers now try to now discredit the significance of these words being included the Ramey memo (this is laughable)

As the Skeptic/debunkers continue to be back themselves into a corner they will come up with even more outrageous statements (not unlike the Roswell slide team)
As CDA makes laughable posts I take note of what Steven Hawking just stated TODAY!!

""Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach," Hawking told El Pais. "To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational. The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."

I will take Steven Hawkings rational and analytical mind over the ever so fading CDA,BB, and Lance posts anytime.

cda said...

JB:

Why not ask Hawking what his views are on Roswell (or any other UFO report), instead of assuming his views would support yours. He is most probably laughing at you, not me. He may well believe in ET life elsewhere in the universe, but this certainly does NOT mean he accepts the Roswell yarn as propagated by the pro-ET writers.

None of your "creditable intelligent people " (presumably you meant "credible") would have the slightest idea of what a real ET (or an ET craft) looks like, so their views are worthless.

You have confirmed nothing whatever about the word 'victims' in the Ramey memo. Neither has anyone else.

Which is it - fantasy land or cloud-cuckoo land?

Jim Bender said...

ya sure thing, whatever you say I love to feed your GIANT EGO, its beyond comical.

Your posts mean nothing, but unfortunately for you the ET event at Roswell still lives on, and like I have been saying UFO/Debunkers are a dying breed, but by all means keep your entertaining posts coming, CDA its better then stand up comedy!!

What happened in Roswell?

As for the Roswell incident, nearly two-thirds of the respondents to the poll said they believed that a UFO crash-landed in a field outside the New Mexico town.

In one of the most famous UFO "sightings" in U.S. history, Roswell residents in 1947 saw lights in the night sky, followed by a loud explosion. A rancher found the "crash site" and removed a large piece of debris, storing it in his shed.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Kevin Randle wrote to Brian Bell:

"And finally, stop attempting to moderate this blog. If you wish to be a moderator, start your own where you can pontificate at will without having to worry about getting the facts right."

An excellent idea. I've been wondering why BB, cda, and lance don't pool their resources and put up a website of their own where they can document the evidence supporting their Roswell hypothesis. Or take the time and trouble to write a book doing the same. Of course that could be hard work, unless their evidence can actually be laid out in a magazine article, which seems likely.

Steve Sawyer said...

@DR:

So, this reexamination and reanalysis of the JB photo negs from Ramey's press conference that you've been involved with since April, based on what you've indicated here, has derived some modest new results.

Will there be an analytical report issued from the parties, like you, who have been doing this new reexamination?

If so, when might it be coming out, assuming there is such a planned report to hopefully be issued soon? I'd be interested in reading any such new analysis/report.

KRandle said...

Steve -

There is a journal article in preparation so that the analysis can be peer reviewed. The problem is that the analysis is slow going with the experts, who will be identified in the article, operating on their own time. I had hoped that this would be completed long before now. But, when you must rely on volunteers donating their time and expertise, sometimes their jobs get in the way.

David Rudiak said...

CDA said:
Do you think the phrase "victims of the wreck" is the sort of wording that would be used in a memo (or teletype) written by someone who was reporting on a crash of an aerial craft?

"Victims of the wreck", if you do electronic searches of such things as modern /old newspapers is a very common description of people injured/killed in crashes of many kinds: cars, ships, trains, aircraft, etc.

I suggest a phrase like "bodies found in the wreckage" would be a far more likely choice of words.

Bit of a mouthful, especially for a telex? That there are ”victims” automatically tells someone that there are casualties, dead or alive. The next line, BTW does bring up something "IN THE 'DISC'", the word in front I now believe to be CA)DAVERS. The line goes on to mention whatever was "IN THE DISC" was being PREPed, likely by the "T)EAM AT FORT WORTH" who the "VICTIMS " were being forwarded to. ("PREP" popped out from the computer analysis, replacing the much less probable SHIP or SEND that had been previously proposed.) There is yet another key word on the following line again likely involved with body recovery.

So it isn't all just "VICTIMS". There are other words in the memo pointing to the first part of the memo dealing primarily with body recovery and handling.

The word 'victims' looks artificial and out of place here, as there was no way Ramey would know whether they were indeed victims, or pilots or passengers.

Fail to see what difference it would make. Pilots or passengers can be victims too. They were dead or injured, whatever, but there were casualties. That's conveyed by the pithy word "victims", as in this definition: "a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action."

He might even have used the word 'humanoids'.

He might have. He might also have used Martians or space men. Now you have Ramey knowing the details, while just telling us there was "no way" he could have known.

In the end, the memo is what it is and Ramey used what he used, whether CDA finds it comprehensible or not.

For example the ETs may have been kamikaze pilots who deliberately crashed their craft, knowing they would perish. (Who are we to say otherwise?).

Or trapeze artists or flying monkeys. Who's to say? How dare Ramey use the very common, generic word "victims" to describe them.

Because of this I do wonder if 'victims' is simply a word that fits (or appears to fit) the letter count, spacing and APPROXIMATELY the letter shapes that are barely visible;

Let's see, right word length and letters that appear to be of the right letter shape. I believe that's called reading.

BTW, it doesn't "appear to fit" the letter count. More ignorance on your part. Most of the words can be assigned EXACT letter counts. Old impact printers like typewriters and telexes use non-proportional font where each letter, thin or wide, occupies the same space. Columns of text line up underneath one another, so even if you can't necessarily make out exactly where each letter is (but at least see where the spaces between words are), you can line up the columns and with 100% accuracy count the letters in a word. Here is an example:

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

the main reason for believing it was 'victims' being the natural bias towards anything suggesting alien bodies.

The main reasons are 1) That is what MOST people see (called reading again), 2) It has been tested by computer against other proposed words and is the best fit, 3) It is supported by other words in the memo suggesting bodies involved, 4) Yes, and it makes sense in the Roswell context (instead of similar words like VIRGINS or VIOLINS that make no sense) in that now we have many witnesses telling us of bodies recovered.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin, you wrote:

"In other instances, you were challenged and others provided the sources for you showing that elements of your claim were inaccurate."

Yes, as they see it, or as as their agenda would have it. Perhaps minor errors but that's not uncommon when responding quickly to conversational posts. But this isn't a court trial where every detail is presented to convict someone - or is it?

And besides, I wouldn't say your believers never do this themselves. Your blog is not a peer reviewed research journal, a court, scientific forum or any thing like them - it's a blog. For some it's probably a place of open dialog, counter opinions, inquiry, entertainment, debate, conjecture and so on. Many have said that directly in their posts.
-----
Credibility:

Your attempt to paint all of my comments as entirely fictional is a bit ironic. You doubted my post about Schmitt claiming he purposely lied to mislead investigators to the wrong site, and when I posted the video your disbelief magically turned into a claim that you just wanted it documented on your blog. The same can be said of your suspicion of Marcel's additional RDR comments I quoted and which CDA clarified.

I can say equally that posting believers have been challenged and frequently cite nothing concrete to back up their positions, or they insert commentary such as yours below to misrepresent:

"They were not in the streets or running around armed blasting away at anything that moved."

Correct, and I never said that Kevin - you added that yourself.
-----
Double Standard:

Jim Benders' "I got news for you" statement is a good example. You accept that comment without evidence, but that's OK 'cause it fits your worldview. And then you delete posts when they mention a certain flight of balloons while letting Rudiak post endlessly counter opinions referencing the very same flight by name.
-----
Evidence & Claims:

If anything the evidence for ET at Roswell is circumstantial without photographic, physical, or biological proof of any kind that supports an alien conclusion. So when you write things like:

"You claimed people died during the "War of the Worlds" panic but have provided no documentation for that claim."

I have to wonder why you don't apply that same standard to the believing crowd and yourself. You may indicate that you do, but not really in practice where certain ET beliefs are espoused.

If you don't want anyone to question, critique, or challenge your assumptions and beliefs regarding Roswell, you might do well to consider making the blog exclusive for believers only, where they can banter about Roswell details (or lack thereof) that remain forever burned into their belief system.

cda said...

Jeanne:

"An excellent idea. I've been wondering why BB, cda, and lance don't pool their resources and put up a website of their own where they can document the evidence supporting their Roswell hypothesis. Or take the time and trouble to write a book doing the same. Of course that could be hard work, unless their evidence can actually be laid out in a magazine article, which seems likely."

Don't you think there are far too many blogs, websites, magazines and books on this Roswell affair already? There is no need for "hard work" either. More than enough work has been done on this affair without any definitive conclusion. Moreover, there is absolutely no prospect of ANY conclusion, at any time, being reached. So in 2065, 2115, maybe even 2165 people will STILL be debating Roswell.

Aren't you looking forward to it?

cda said...

DR:

OK so let us suppose this infamous memo contains the words you say it does. What do you think happened to this memo? Was it inadvertently destroyed, despite being the very first, as far as is known, written record of an ET visit to planet earth?

Further, where are all the myriad of similar documents, of all kinds, from the military, from scientific committees, from politicians, etc. that undoubtedly exist? Were they all mysteriously destroyed too? Your duty, and that of all ET proponents, is to produce the hard evidence, and pretty soon. But documentation is only one piece of this hard evidence. ETHers have produced precisely nothing so far, of any use whatever, despite various attempts at it (e.g. the slides and the Santilli 'autopsy' film).

As to the analysis of this Ramey memo now going on, I do not believe for a moment that it will resolve anything regarding the great Roswell 'truth'. Do you?

Brian Bell said...

Jeanne -

I'm in agreement with CDA when he states:

"Don't you think there are far too many blogs, websites, magazines and books on this Roswell affair already?"

Indeed there are.

A quick and verifiable search on Google (for those who need source verification that's www.google.com) yields the following hits:

Roswell UFO - 1.6 million
Roswell Saucer - 426,000
Roswell Alien - 1.3 million
Roswell Skeptics - 74,000

Oh...Roswell Ramey Memo - 10,000.

What? Why so few, what on earth (or space) is up with that? Huh? That's the best evidence ever.

Ramey Memo - 77,000 now that's better.

But a Ufologist said it's not really a memo its a "teletype".......

Ramey Teletype....7,990....WHAT?

Humm...well it's some sort of conspiracy I'm certain of that. Those buggers just don't want to admit the truth.

And for the record, CDA is correct when he says your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren will still be searching for answers to this conundrum. That is if Ufology can survive that long.

Brian Bell said...

CDA -

Regarding your question to DR, I submit that they don't have to produce that documentation.

It's a given Roswell was an alien crash...come on!

Nearly 1,000 first hand eye witnesses were interviewed and that is exactly what they claimed. Isn't that proof enough?

Never mind having to produce:

1) Cross referencing collaborative documentation between military and government sources.

2) Peripheral yet supporting documentation of personal correspondence, teletypes, note books, diaries, letters or personal snap shots of the crash itself sent to loved ones and mom back home.

3) Official military photography of the dual crash locations including the craft itself and living or dead aliens.

4) Official military motion picture film of the crash retrieval.

5) Official records or orders for trucks, aircraft, and troops to be deployed to clean up the mess.

6) The craft itself, or egg, or boot heel shaped thing, or bat winged object whatever it was.

7) Parts or portions of the actual material the craft was made from that was scattered on the "one mile square" debris site.

8) Documentstion the crash site was tested for radioactive debris and declared not "hot".

9) The body of a living or deceased 4 foot being with large head, slit for a mouth, lump of a nose, and very, very big black eyes.

I mean you don't need that stuff CDA. You really don't.

That Ramey Teletype is all anyone needs coupled with 1,000 first hand witnesses to easily prove in any court of law in any country that aliens bit the dust in 1947.

Sheesh! When will you ever understand...

Rusty Lingenfelter said...

The discussion in the last few stories has been pretty tiresome, but I can't resist a little input. @Brian said most recently, but he chants a familiar mantra about Kevin or others (insert whatever derogatory term for those who consider an ETH explanation) who "want to convince" someone of an ETH for Roswell. I admit I have not read every story, post, etc., but I have never heard Kevin state that convincing anyone of anything was his goal. If it were, I think he might have admitted defeat long ago as the skeptics here only rarely concede even an esoteric point. Now if Kevin came to one of the skeptics blogs, I agree that might indicate he wanted to convince someone. I've visited a few of the sites of some of the skeptics here. Minimal content and even fewer contributors. I speculate that is because they have no positive point of view that really starts a discussion. They are forced to wait for someone to move their pawn in order to countermove. I don't really understand the motivation, but that is one of many things I don't understand, including what (if anything) happened at Roswell. I do continue to be amused that people will argue with or agree with non-entities. In an Ender inspired moment, I can't help help but imagine there is one person who actually writes for all these "personas". It is even more entertaining when these personas challenge someone else's integrity. Maybe I'm the only one who sees the irony. Let the schoolyard slapfest continue...

KRandle said...

Brian -

Please supply the source for your claim that there are 1000 first-hand witnesses. I know that I have talked so some 500 people that range from first-hand witnesses to those who were on the base or in the town who saw nothing at all but very few of them knew anything from personal observation.

And, I'm not sure what your problem is with the research into the Ramey memo. Let us say that there is a consensus on what it says. Let us say that that consensus is that the message is somewhat benign. Let us say that the source is actually the news wire and that Johnson brought it into the office with him. Now, what have we learned? That the memo confirms an event, which we all agree to, but it provides no insider information about a craft or alien "victims." Isn't that better than the continuing speculations about what it might say.

Let us say that David is correct in his reading of the memo. Let us say that it actually does say, "Victims of the wreck." while that is not absolute proof of alien visitation, at least we don't have to argue about provenance. We know exactly where the document surfaced.

Again, isn't this preferable to endless speculation about the text. We can move the argument to another arena.

I will say here that I'm an agnostic on the memo. I don't know what it says (other than some very obvious words) and hope that we can resolve this... good or bad (for the skeptics or for the rest of us). I'm hoping that we can reach a reasonable conclusion here.

cda said...

Brian:

Yes we can all treat Roswell in a light-hearted manner. I do myself at times.

On the serious side, I wonder what Gen Ramey's true reactions would have been on that afternoon if he and his gang really thought what was brought into his office was a crashed spaceship from afar. How would he, or anyone else for that matter, have handled this sudden and absolutely astonishing situation? Would he have been so frightened and so dumbfounded by it all that he would have gone out of his mind? And how would his superiors in Washington and his juniors at Ft Worth have reacted?

The mind boggles at the thought. But we shall never know.

Another related matter: I am certain Kevin does not really think the Ramey memo contains anything of importance to science. I agree that if at all possible we should try and decipher it, if only to finally lay it to rest. But really the idea that this scrap of paper will ever unlock the greatest scientific event of all time is laughable. It just won't happen.

So yes you are right, it is all a bit of a comedy.

One other thing. Bill Moore claimed, perhaps by using psychic powers, that this sheet of paper merely contained the text of the radio broadcast Ramey was going to give that evening (see THE ROSWELL INCIDENT, p41 UK ed). Does anyone, anywhere, have a recording of this broadcast? It might, just might, provide the final definitive answer. But don't bank on it.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin, the claim of a thousand witnesses is not yours, it comes from the verbal testimony of Schmitt and Carey and via commentary they have provided on their book "Witness to Roswell". Videos, radio, and if I recall correctly even some marketing related language.

Over time, as you know, we have moved from something like 300 to 900 with witnesses with added commentary by some investigators that says we are now around 1,000 people.

Despite the fact many of these witnesses are deceased, the number of interviews with people who claim to have witnessed something extraordinary has grown exponentially.

Is that the result of truly uncovering more and more witnesses? Or is it due to a mythos that keeps growing and growing when Schmitt, Carey, and even Friedman continue to "investigate" people who Schmitt says are important players since they are "the children of the witnesses to Roswell", which just happens to be their honest to goodness planned sequel to "Witness to Roswell."

As I once humorously posted on another blog, I can envision a Roswell trilogy with the third installment entitled, "The Pets of The Children Of The Witnesses To Roswell".

The back slip cover might read, "Buffy was just a fun loving poodle in July of 1947 but that all changed when MP's took away her favorite fetching stick. A stick made of memory metal bearing purple hyroglyphics from another world."

Jeanne Ruppert said...

cda wrote:

"Don't you think there are far too many blogs, websites, magazines and books on this Roswell affair already? There is no need for "hard work" either. More than enough work has been done on this affair without any definitive conclusion. Moreover, there is absolutely no prospect of ANY conclusion, at any time, being reached. So in 2065, 2115, maybe even 2165 people will STILL be debating Roswell."

I agree that there are far too many blogs on the internet, on this subject and on others. But if you want your interpretation of what happened at Roswell to be taken seriously by others, I think you have to lay out your interpretation with its supporting evidence in a coherent presentation, as has been done by Roswell researchers who have found and articulated grounds to support the event as having been anomalous [in the context of other events during the ufo wave of 1947 and earlier, during WWII and before that over atomic power facilities such as the one at Hanford, Washington]. Roswell did not take place in a vacuum but rather in the context of other ufo events well-known to the military and the government in the US and also elsewhere. The ETH was first proposed by high-level figures in the Air Force and well-informed members of think tanks such as Rand and Battelle.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin -

I've always said that it was smart of Rudiak to take a gander at that memo. I don't know if he as the first but assume he was. I've said that publically on your blog in the past (don't ask me to go collect it).

The outcome thus far, as you have truthfully stated, is not very promising. I think we can actually agree on that.

We could also question the past methods Rudiak used while attempting to read it. No worries, it's a grand idea to open up the process to others who can apply a similar or different approach. As long as they manage their bias in the process.

What I'm addressing is the belief the memo is the ONLY thing which can prove one way or another what actually happened.

Believers, including David himself, have already decided in some way what it indicates. That combined with an ingrained bias toward alien visitation leaves little doubt in my mind that even if the teletype confirms nothing but gibberish, or confirms a prosaic explanation, like other evidence it will simply be brushed under the rug, ignored, and vehemently defended as still containing proof of alien life.

As David reluctantly wrote in his own commentary, he abhors the notion that it might actually indicate the entire event is linked to existing circumstantial data suggesting unwilling people were used in some form of chemical/biological dispersal experiment and thus became "victims". Or alternatively that cadavers were "prepped" at a location and inserted into some newly crafted gondola designed to test the effects of high altitude exposure or radiation on human physiology.

No, I don't have a government document which absolutely confirms Roswell was such an event, but there are real documents from spring 1947 and well after which state such experiments were conducted and ordered to be hidden from public eyes at all costs. Including tests with unwilling humans at altitude.

But again, you don't like alternative hypothesis so we should stop there.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

BB wrote:

"But this isn't a court trial where every detail is presented to convict someone - or is it?"

That seems to be the way you (and a few others) attempt to use this forum, BB. Your own verbal behavior adopts the tone and style of a prosecuting attorney with a vengeance.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

BB wrote:

"No, I don't have a government document which absolutely confirms Roswell was such an event, but there are real documents from spring 1947 and well after which state such experiments were conducted and ordered to be hidden from public eyes at all costs. Including tests with unwilling humans at altitude."

It occurs to me that you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, BB, since the only support you can provide for your comparatively prosaic hypothesis concerning Roswell would require you to reveal those 'documents'that you claim reveal human outrages committed by the military and government scientists in New Mexico in 1947. If you don't work for the military or other agencies of the government of the US, you might as well be working for them since you feel the need to protect them from disclosure of one lie or another.

KRandle said...

Brian -

Just to pick a nit, because, well, that's sometimes fun. I notice that you have backed off your claim of a thousand first-hand witnesses, suggested that Tom and Don upped the ante to somewhere around 900 but that includes second-hand witnesses and children or grandchild of those in Roswell in 1947. So, there really isn't a source for this, except maybe someone decided it was close to a thousand and someone else decided to leave off the qualifier.

KRandle said...

Oh, I forgot to mention, David was not there in charge of the investigation, but as someone who could answer detailed and specific questions about what had happened in Ramey's office and possibly suggest other avenues to search. I would have been there as well, but became ill and couldn't make the trip.

The point is, that the scans will be posted to various sites as soon as the copyright can be cleared and we get permission from the University of Texas at Arlington. It has always been our intention to make everything available so that others would have the opportunity to review what we did, study the scans, and maybe suggest a new way to clear up the text of the teletype.

Nitram Ang said...

Paul Young wrote an excellent post, which I have "tweaked" below...

For myself & Paul Young, I can't help being very impressed with KR's and DR's knowledge and attention to detail on the whole "Roswell Incident" subject.

I think many people visiting this blog, who are understandably skeptical, would be much more swayed by the arguments put forward by them than by, say, arguments put forward by cda (and bb who also hasn't been to Roswell or interviewed any of the witnesses), that basically boils down to "it can't have happened...because the govt wouldn't keep it secret after 70 odd years...because they're so honest about, errr, stuff"

And to be fair...sitting back and watching CDA, BB & to a lesser extent Lance attempting to joust with David or Kevin...is akin to watching a one legged man in an arse kicking contest.

That's not to say that on occasion, they make some good points (although I can't think of many off the top of my head)

Either way, it makes for wonderful pantomime.

And here's a good ole' Lancashire saying, for the next time you feel down and out after a DR/KR drubbing..."Keep plugging away, lads."

Steve Sawyer said...

Kevin, you replied to me in response to the question I asked about when and where the current Ramey memo re-analysis would be published as follows:

"There is a journal article in preparation so that the analysis can be peer reviewed. The problem is that the analysis is slow going with the experts, who will be identified in the article, operating on their own time."

It's interesting to me that part of the article prep involves peer review, I assume by some kind of photo or other kind of experts who aren't involved in research or writing about the Roswell incident themselves -- is that correct?

And, in reference to your mention of a "journal article," does that mean the article will eventually be published in the SSE's "Journal of Scientific Exploration" or their newer "EdgeScience" publication, or is the article to be published in some other peer-reviewed journal, and if so, can you name the journal involved?

Nitram Ang said...

Jim Bender wrote

"We have confirmed that the Ramey memo does have the following words included in the memo (Victims, and DISC)"

Who is "We" Jim?

CDA wrote

"You have confirmed nothing whatever about the word 'victims' in the Ramey memo. Neither has anyone else."

On this occasion CDA is correct - the word "victims" has not been confirmed 100%, but it is without doubt a "favourite" and the choice of one of the people in "David's team" - a skeptic) that visited the University of Texas earlier this year

Regards
Nitram

cda said...

Nitram:

Your reasoning is extraordinary about who knows what and about skeptics who have never visited Roswell and never interviewed any witnesses are not fit to debate DR and KR.

As it happens I have never been to Desert Center in California, have never been to Venus, and never spoke to George Adamski or any of his six witnesses. Would you say that therefore I (or anyone skeptical of the case) was not fit to pronounce on whether Adamski's claims to have met a Venusian were true or false?

Or that none of us are fit to pronounce on a case like the Hill abduction because we never met the Hills and never visited the spot where their supposed abduction occurred?

Nitram Ang said...

CDA wrote:

"Or that none of us are fit to pronounce on a case like the Hill abduction because we never met the Hills and never visited the spot where their supposed abduction occurred?"

I think it would help the investigation (not debate - you enjoy using the word debate) and your understanding of the case, if you had met the Hills and been to the spot of their supposed abduction.

But again we are off topic...

Brian Bell said...

Kevin -

I haven't backed off if that is your perception regarding the 1,000 witness statement. If you care to verify this listened to the dozens of radio and conference videos where Schmitt speaks endlessness off the same rehearsed script. It's there if you investigate it.

Brian Bell said...

Nitram, again if this really is your name, I can't help but wonder why your opinions can be so confidently expressed when you choose not to reveal your identity. Someone on this blog once stated anonymity was justified because people lose their jobs over this stuff. Well if you're so confident why are you hiding? Or what are you hiding?

Since we're into picking nits you referenced and modified an original CDA comment:

"...it can't have happened...because the govt wouldn't keep it secret after 70 odd years...because they're so honest about, errr, stuff."

I never said "it can't have happened", I'm just saying what you claim happened never happened. You and they haven't proven it.

Also, if you and other conspiracy minded people distrust your governments so much, why the heck do you want them to "disclose" the truth to you? You don't believe them now, so why would you believe them if they revealed today it all happened just as you claim it did? Circular reasoning in my book. "They're a pack of liars, but if they admit this we'll believe them by golly, we WILL believe them!"

You also wrote:

"And to be fair...sitting back and watching CDA, BB & to a lesser extent Lance attempting to joust with David or Kevin...is akin to watching a one legged man in an arse kicking contest."

I understand these guys are flag bearers for your cause and, as mentioned, your unproven claims.

As such I know you adore and worship every iota they write. And as I have written before, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Blind follow ship in something unproven is never a great idea.

The challenges I think skeptic's offer are in fact valuable to you and your cause because it forces them to validate and contemplate what they believe, something which has yet to offer physical proof of any kind. It should be appreciated rather than mocked.

That also goes for your personal theory that Roswell was an interdimensional human piloted time machine from the future.

cda said...

Brian:

You say that Nitram, or Martin, is of the view that "Roswell was an interdimensional human piloted time machine from the future." A machine from the future, eh?

If so he has a bit of a nerve criticizing us skeptics who at least stick to 3 dimensions and the present or past.

If he is correct in his unorthodox ideas, I look forward to travelling back to the past, then viewing the future, when we shall learn the truth about it all - finally!

Brian Bell said...

CDA:

Well yes, at least he posted such a comment several months back during the slides fiasco. On this blog too.

Nitram you would be better at explaining your comment than me.

Something about fervent belief it wasn't ET but people from our future - short big headed folks with large eyes. Again, if I recall correctly he made mention they are the product of our evolution.

Nitram please clarify your comment to ensure I am properly representing your viewpoint.

Maybe you can also explain the debris field size relative to time travel machines and how they might crash if the pilots haven't properly attended their distracted driver courses. I mean for heaven's sake how could they have missed hitting that balloon when they clearly could have read archived versions of this blog before departing home!

And I do agree, perhaps when our conspiracy laden governments finally come clean, we can ditch our combustion engines and migrate to anywhere in human history. Just as shown in one of those classic Star Trek shows.

KRandle said...

Brian -

You said, "Nearly 1,000 first hand eye witnesses were interviewed and that is exactly what they claimed." And then you said, "Over time, as you know, we have moved from something like 300 to 900 with witnesses with added commentary by some investigators that says we are now around 1,000 people."

But, first-hand, eyewitness is something different than 900 witnesses, and then some commentary by some investigators that brings the number to 1000, which, of course was not your original claim.

So, you have backed off of the original claim of 1000 first-hand, eyewitnesses to something other than that. You suggest that Don Schmitt is using the number, but I suspect he is saying witness as opposed to eyewitness, and he is counting interviews conducted over 25 years with people who were at Roswell but who said they had seen or heard nothing, people who had heard stories but saw nothing themselves and family members who remembered fathers, uncles, cousins and the like saying something about the case. I also suspect he counts people such as the geologists contacted in the search for Gerald Anderson's moss agate. Or, in other words, the number might be close to a thousand and maybe he should adopt the FBI tactic of talking about interviews conducted, in which case I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a number as large as 1000... and if we talk of interviews conducted, then the number creeps up from there.

However, your original claim of first-hand, eyewitnesses is inaccurate.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin:

"but I suspect he is saying witness as opposed to eyewitness, and he is counting interviews conducted over 25 years with people who were at Roswell but who said they had seen or heard nothing, people who had heard stories but saw nothing themselves and family members who remembered fathers, uncles, cousins and the like saying something about the case. I also suspect he counts people such as the geologists contacted in the search for Gerald Anderson's moss agate."

You might want to ask him.

If you agree that even more than a thousand interviews has taken place, then the number is confirmed. As far as "eye witness" vs "witness" or "interview" goes the difference to a listener may not be much at all.

Especially the way Schmitt lines up his talks which usually have statements like this consistently spoken (this is paraphrased):

"The Air Force has given four completely different stories and still can't get it right.."

"That's right...it's a cover up of ignorance..."

"We've spoken to nearly a 1,000 people who claim something landed that was extraordinary...and not of this earth."

"We've been told that if we took all of this evidence and testimony to any court in the country we would win hands down.."

These are typical (although paraphrased by me) comments that are part of his usual and nearly identical script spoken one event to the next.

Does it matter if he is citing 1,000 witnesses interviewed over a span of 25 years or 25 days?

What he is doing is selling a false statement for effect. That was my point.

The jargon is intentionally combined with qualifiers that reinforce this 1,000 (or implied near thousand) to audiences who want to hear there are an amazing number of witnesses to the Roswell alien crash.

He never says, "Over the last 25 years Friedman, Carey, Randle, myself and others have conducted nearly (or more than or close to) 1,000 interviews of which 95% yielded nothing, or just anacdotal and circumstantial evidence only, with the remainder being something that clearly indicates the witnesses were part of an alien crash and cover-up."

Why not? Because when you're selling a myth in your verbal message you leave details out as means to influence the crowd and impress them with your (non) evidence."

This is salesmanship well known in Ufology but rarely addressed and certainly not admitted by saucer lovers.



KRandle said...

Brian -

Your original number is not confirmed because you claimed first-hand eyewitnesses which is different than what you say now.

You quote Schmitt as saying, "We've spoken to nearly a 1,000 people who claim something landed that was extraordinary...and not of this earth." This is not what you claimed he said. You were selling a false statement and were caught doing it.

Everyone understands that these interviews were conducted over years rather than days, and I have no reason to suspect that he and Carey haven't conducted nearly a thousand interviews with many, many people.

Nothing you have presented underscores your original claim. Instead you attempt to move the goal posts by citing what you believe to be additional problems, but all you are really doing is proving that when you paraphrase you change the original meaning.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin, if you or anyone else were to stand in front of any audience and say that you have interviewed 300, 500, or a thousand witnesses or conducted 300, 500 or a thousand interviews with as many witnesses to back up your claim it would be false without qualifiers.

Plain and simple. Saying such a thing directly conveys one thousand people can verify the claim through first hand knowledge. This isn't true no matter what anyone says.

Even in your own books you state you have conducted several hundred interviews without qualifying it by saying something like they were conducted with only 41 people dozens of times each or that only 41 could verify your conclusions from 271 actually interviewed.

Without qualifiers it's just false advertising. If anything the people who do this are really the ones getting caught manipulating the information to sell a point.

This is a common example posted on book reviews and told at conferences:

"Kevin Randle, a free-lance writer and UFO investigator, and Don Schmitt, associated with the Hynek Center for UFO Research, interviewed hundreds of witnesses...."

Hundreds of "witnesses"?

So it's no surprise then that Schmitt would say "a thousand witnesses were interviewed". They are not really witnesses are they?

cda said...

Brian:

Just as silly is when we read something like: "these witnesses have all stated it was something not of this earth".

Yes of course these 'witnesses' know all about what comes from this earth and what does not. The simplest response to anyone who claims this is to tell them that there is NOTHING known to science which is "not of this earth", other than meteorites.

Anything else can only come from science fiction.

Brian Bell said...

CDA:

Exactly.

And the way it plays out is investigators tell people that witnesses claim it was something not of this earth....then follow-up with a statement that says they know because they have conducted hundreds or thousands of interviews or even a thousand interviews with witnesses.

Game play.

Even MUFON says this on their website regarding UFO Crash @ Roswell:

"Approximately 271 people are listed in the book who were "contacted and interviewed" for the book, and this number does not include those who chose to remain anonymous, meaning more than 300 witnesses were interviewed, a figure Pflock said the authors frequently cited. Of these 300-plus individuals, only 41 can be "considered genuine first- or second-hand witnesses to the events in and around Roswell or at the Fort Worth Army Air Field," and only 23 can be "reasonably thought to have seen physical evidence, debris recovered from the Foster Ranch." Of these, only seven have asserted anything suggestive of otherworldly origins for the debris."

AND

"....only four people with supposed firsthand knowledge of alien bodies were interviewed and identified by Roswell authors: Frank Kaufmann; Jim Ragsdale; Lt. Col. Albert Lovejoy Duran; Gerald Anderson."

Now that these folks have been duly discredited, ETers simply back the second hand testimonies of people who claim they heard from others all about alien bodies.

I guess second hand testimony is good enough - why bother with physical evidence?

KRandle said...

Brian -

Since you have failed to prove your original claim and have diverted the conversation far enough, I declare this over. I will entertain no more discussion about your opinion about the witnesses and the way they have been categorized.

Chris Bendas said...

Another thing about the note is that he intentionally wanted everyone to know that it is a cover-up without saying a word.

KRandle said...

Brian -

Yes, I am now violating my own edict by saying that LTC Albert Duran has not been discredited just because you say so. I have found his name in official government documents, so he did, in fact exist. It's not my fault that (a) Karl Pflock couldn't find him and (b) that he knew nothing about him other than what was said in the footnote.

Mark Reynolds said...

Kevin...what is your opinion of the 1950 Hottel memo?

KRandle said...

Mark -

It refers to the Aztec crash and was based on the rumors circulating about Scully and his book. The memo is real but the events described are not.

nsurround said...

Well gee wizz. Based on the description of what Mac Brazell said he found on the Foster ranch, it would seem to fit fairly well with the construction components of a Project Mogul balloon. The Ramey photo(s) show some balloon material of some kind. The photo could be a deception cover story but with the Brazel description it does seem logical. On the other hand Mr. Brazel could have been intimidated to change his story but a newspaper person who interviewed him early on wrote a description of the debris similar to a what became known as Project Mogul. However with the Ramey memo now up for discussion and analysis it throws a new mystery into the case. I myself always leave the options open on the Roswell incident. No one to my knowledge has definitively bagged this one and probably never will. However there are so many credible UFO phenomena observations that have come afterwards that this case does not seem as important as it once did. However it is still a really cool story even if no one has all the answers.