There
has been some discussion that suggests our research into the Ramey memo has
been accomplished behind closed doors in a manner similar to the way the Not
Roswell Slides were investigated. While we certainly did arrange with those at
the University of Texas – Arlington to make new scans of the negative, it was
not for sinister purposes. Arrangements, which including several experts in
forensic photography who donated their time, were difficult to make in all came
together in April of 2015. They spent several long days preparing to make the
scans, accomplishing that work, and ensuring that there were no other tests to
be done. They then returned to their home bases to make additional observations
using the scans they made. Some of the digital files were nearly 250 MB in size,
yes 250 megabytes.
It
had been hoped that the latest techniques would produce immediate results. Such
was not the case. The analysis has not reached any universal conclusions so
that little has been said about all of this. Several people, some on the
skeptical side of the fence, Lance Moody being one, have been given copies of
the scans to see if they can come up with a way to read the memo in much the same
way that those working with the Roswell Slides Research Group had done.
There
is a journal article that is nearly finished. It lacks the conclusions which,
if they are negative, meaning the issue has not been resolved, might not find a
publisher. If we had positive results, meaning the memo could be read then a
publisher could probably be found… I will note by positive results, I refer
only to success in reading the memo and not about the content of it.
However,
this process is going slower than any of us expected. Given that, we decided to
publish here one of the better scans to see what might be seen by others. As I
say, some of the files are gigantic…
 |
| Copyright by University of Texas - Arlington Special Collections and Kevin D. Randle |
We
still have a copyright issue, so for all intents and purposes, the copyright of
this particular image is protected and cannot be published elsewhere without
permission from us and the University of Texas – Arlington. It doesn’t mean
that researchers can’t share it with one another, it just means it can’t be
published anywhere including on the Internet without permission.
150 comments:
Although copyrighted, it's funny how these images appear all over the Internet on various websites without proper citation or approval acknowledgement. Some examples:
http://www.ufocasebook.com/rameymemo.html
http://www.parahauntpost.com/2013/01/general-ramey-memo-deciphered-roswell.html?m=1
http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=crashes&action=print&num=1293790974
http://www.pinstopin.com/roswell-ramey-memo/
Kevin said "Some of the digital files were nearly 250 MB in size, yes 250 megabytes"
Err, that's not very big by today's standards Kevin. One of the Roswell Slide scans we worked on was 2Gb (so, nearly 10 times the size).
Given the relative low cost of hard drives with storage in the terabytes (I have several...), there has been a considerable amount of file size inflation in recent years.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing the various scans being shared in an uncompressed format.
Brian -
Just because others violate copyright does not make it right. Yes, I know the images are often published without proper credit and many times in violation of copyright. The image here is not free for the taking as way too many people today think is just fine. There is sweat equity in the scan here, meaning it is not available for publication by others without permission... which is not to say that people sharing it for research purposes must be granted permission. Rather than clarify you just manage to obscure.
The only words that jumped out at me on first glance with this picture were Forth Worth, possibly "disk"/"disc", and balloon. And a few the's, of's. Also the final three words look to me like land -------- crews.
Tears my hair out, this. Well, if I had hair. So i'll say neck hair.
Kevin -
You're off on a tangent again. I merely pointed out the fact no one follows copyrights in ufology. Obscuring what?
Well, it's a cleaner scan, and I suspect will be much more amenable to algorithmic deblurring than the previous scans
I don't know why IBM Watson Research hasn't been contacted to help. They pioneered the most sophisticated scanning technology a decade ago. Not only that but they have the ability to supply the image analysis algorithms and CPU horsepower.
JUst a point about the new scans. People are making the mistake of thinking that blowing the image up in going to help them see things more clearly, but in fact, the opposite is true. Below is a link to a resized version of the image from this blog post, and if you get close to the screen there are words which can be readily made out.
http://i.imgur.com/g49vffx.jpg
With these new scans what is commonly said to be the word 'VICTIMS' looks more like 'VIEWING', at least to my eyes.
@ Ross
And while we may never know how the word "viewing" may have been used and in what context, assuming it is the noun viewing rather than victims, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect "viewing" with the events in Ramey's office, namely a viewing of some material found on the ranch.
Old or new scans, I don't know how anyone can claim to see anything at all.
And I agree with Ross and Sasquatch, the greatest possibility for resolution will come from imaging scientists who can custom design a processing algorithm.
Or, as cda suggests, the discovery of a recording (or text) of Ramey's radio talk would solve this question or rule out that identity. However unlikely that is.
Kevin,
Regarding the word "DISC" (with "" punctuation then) which sounds for "me" something press related, not military (previous blog release and comments), and maybe VIEWING in the texte, you already noticed yourself (in a 2009 your blog article) from different interviewes you did (or not) with JBJ that:
Please note here that he [JBJ] said they had received a teletype message that the material was on the way to Ramey’s office and when he arrived the weather balloons were spread out on the floor.
And So now we have Johnson suggesting that he had taken the "flash" message out to Ramey’s office with him.
If Johnson handed the "flash" message to Ramey, then we know the source of the Ramey Memo and it is not the military.
Dunno if it helps.
Regards,
Gilles
Gilles:
Kevin may have accepted J.B.Johnson's statements at first, but later they became contradictory and confusing and Kevin began to reject them. The problem is/was with all of this testimony that some witnesses were interviewed and reinterviewed far too many times, and as a result gave testimony that was certainly false, or at least contradictory. In the end Kevin and others found they could not trust a single thing Johnson said.
Certainly if Johnson, at the Star-Telegram, did receive a teletype from Ramey's office and took it with him to Ft Worth AF base, it would completely destroy any idea that it was 'top secret' and with it any idea of it referring to the discovery of ET craft & bodies. The ETHers would be 'drowned' forever. I am doubtful if Johnson was correct in this because, if you recall, in 1994 the USAF tracked down all the existing paperwork relating to Roswell (or tried very hard to) and found nothing on this teletype. They DID find the FBI teletype, so should have found the Johnson one too, if it existed.
I have argued for years that if this teletype contains the stupendous news Rudiak & others claim it does, it would never have been destroyed and would be retained with the mountain of other written material pertaining to Roswell. And yes it would literally be a mountain! So where is this mountain? It is all a fantasy, or fairy tale. Take your pick!
Hello CDA,
Yes I "know" (as I found as cognitive psychologist several questions Kevin sent to JBJ "very oriented"/ not privilegiating the "free narration" mood/mode and not the "correct" way how to conduce a witness interview, but that's another debat and Kevin did his best, the "cognitive interview" not really known at the area where the interviewes were done. So it is not a reproach to Kevin, none concerning the "legacy" we have due to Kevin - clap clap -, but in general regarding how ufologists have conduced interviewes).
I meant that it is a pity we could not have some such press flashes, AP, UP releases (if they existed) in order to see if they match or could help the decypheration (yeah, I know the ones Joyce saved). My humble point (but not only mine) is that DISC is between "" driving to examine something not military, so news, media one maybe handed by Ramey. But such AP UP or journal "flash", internal are now probably lost forever, as "garbage" for the contemporans (?).
Brian -
The discussion of copyright is a minor factor but then to post a number of links to pictures of Ramey that do not have the proper copyright on them doesn't help matters. When I first approached UTA for permission to publish the photographs, more than two decades ago, they said "Sure, put give us credit." I have adhered to that and while others might believe it is okay to violate copyright, I'm not among them. That they mentioned, in our recent communications with them some aspect of copyright and that they were conferring with their lawyers, well, I have to respect that as well. Besides, unsolicited legal advice (which isn't necessarily a reflection on you) is not helpful either.
All -
J. Bond Johnson seemed to be quite clear in his memories of what happened when I first talked to him. In a second interview, as I had learned more about these events, I asked him to describe what had happened and got a long, uninterrupted narrative of how he got to Ramey's office, what happened, and about the story he wrote. Once his story was out, Bill Moore and Jaime Shandera began talking about their new "star" witness, J. Bond Johnson but rather than confirm what he had told me, he had a somewhat different tale. He began to say that I misquoted him, though I had the interviews on tape. When I sent him a copy, edited to reflect the areas of dispute (which I had done for his convenience) he made a big deal about having only edited copies. So I sent him copies of all the interviews... which clearly showed the changes. All of this has been published in the past... So, the problem isn't really my interview technique (which could have been better) but the obvious changes in his story.
As one laughable example... In my interviews, he told me seven times that he had written the story that appeared on July 9 in the Star-Telegram. When I pointed to the last paragraph which said Ramey knew all along it was a weather balloon, Johnson then said he didn't write it and didn't know who did.
So, the fact that Johnson claimed at one point he had carried the teletype message into Ramey's office is flawed because Johnson then repudiated that statement when he understood the consequences of it. Johnson is beginning to seem to me like the most likely source of the document Ramey is holding.
CDA seriously
"I have argued for years that if this teletype contains the stupendous news Rudiak & others claim it does, it would never have been destroyed and would be retained with the mountain of other written material pertaining to Roswell. And yes it would literally be a mountain! So where is this mountain? It is all a fantasy, or fairy tale. Take your pick!"
I won't bother to correct the errors you make just in the short post above (there are some egregious ones), but I will suggest that your participation here often only adds noise.
You may believe that you mean well but you really ought to become familiar with the material prior to offering any opinion.
Even though your opinion (like mine too) is skeptical of the Roswell incident, your analyses are almost always so flawed and your command of the facts so lackluster that you end up presenting easy to topple nonsense for KR & DR to deal with.
As a skeptic, I have to say please stop helping Lance - he handles things so much better on his own - which isn't to say he is always correct of course.
Kevin: "As one laughable example... In my interviews, he told me seven times that he had written the story that appeared on July 9 in the Star-Telegram. When I pointed to the last paragraph which said Ramey knew all along it was a weather balloon, Johnson then said he didn't write it and didn't know who did."
According to David's website, the Star-Telegram ran two versions (David has the texts on his site, but not photocopies of the pages that I could find), and writes that the first version was closer to the standard AP account. I haven't seen photocopies, but I wonder if Johnson's photos appeared in both versions (I assume morning and evening editions).
Some AP stories attributed Ramey's statements to WBAP radio Ft Worth which had interviewed Ramey. It might be that the standard text was from Ramey's radio "statement" rather than anything Ramey said in his office.
I find the chronology confusing based on the contemporary newspaper stories, and Johnson isn't much help. There doesn't seem anything like a "press conference" in Ramey's office and I'd have to read the accounts very carefully to determine whether anything happened except some photos were shot, it seems, on two occasions that day.
Regards,
Don
Nitram Ang said (to cda)....
"As a skeptic, I have to say please stop helping Lance - he handles things so much better on his own - which isn't to say he is always correct of course."
I'm rather baffled here Nitram! You're a sceptic?
Considering you disagree with practically all of the views of all of the sceptics that comment on this blog (as being an"ETHer", I often...but not always do) regarding the Roswell incident ...but describe YOURSELF as a Roswell Incident sceptic....then what do you actually believe in?
Does everyone agree that at the bottom of the document is "Ramey"? If so then this would be a message from Ramey to someone else. That would tend to support the Johnson handed him the copy theory.
I can make out "the 'disc'" but not much else in that line. I can tell if it is single or double quotes around disc but one of the two.
@ Johns Space
It's also my conclusion the bottom signature reads "RAMEY" which as you say is one more clue the teletype is indeed a press related item.
Paul & Nitram:
Nitram has never, on this blog anyway, told us what he really believes about Roswell. All he does is criticise skeptics (mainly) and believers (occasionally) but somehow is afraid to tell us his own views. This could be because his beliefs are so complicated and convoluted, as a result of his wide open mind, that he cannot put them into print in plain English.
Not only can he not reveal his true beliefs, but he cannot even reveal his true name.
He writes of me that "your participation here often only adds noise". What does he think his own participation adds (or subtracts)?
@John's Space
My initial impression was that it was Ramey also. I wonder how he usually signed off his papers.
Micheal Mu er Lemurian -
You have been outed, your post deleted for the same reasons that I have deleted all your other posts... the picture has been identified and has nothing to do with the Roswell case.
If the photographer knew the content of the memo doesn't that suggest it contained prosaic content? On the other hand if he didn't wouldn't Ramey have kept the memo from being viewed if its content indicated a UFO crash. Either way it suggest something prosaic.
Regards
@delusion hunter
People can make mistakes though, and if there just would have happened to have been an alien spacecraft crash with alien bodies strewn about, you can imagine that even the coolest of heads might have been flustered as hasty decisions had to be made, about things they had absolutely no idea about. There would have been a million things on Ramey's mind if indeed the aforementioned happened, and so who's to know if the letter is prosaic or not - with logic applied maybe it would be the case, but under those circumstances I just don't think it's possible to tell.
Hello Paul
You wrote:
"I'm rather baffled here Nitram! You're a sceptic?
Considering you disagree with practically all of the views of all of the sceptics that comment on this blog (as being an"ETHer", I often...but not always do) regarding the Roswell incident ...but describe YOURSELF as a Roswell Incident sceptic....then what do you actually believe in?"
There are three skeptics that write regularly on the blog and two of them a quite clueless - they know who they are. While their final conclusion (not ET) is on the balance of probabilities almost certainly correct - their logic in getting there is so ridiculously flawed it's hard not to laugh watching the "pro ET group" shoot them down.
It is so amusing how they choose to take on the experts in this area who have researched the case for years, spoken to various experts and witnesses, written a number of books/articles on the matter, while a couple of clowns who have never even been to Roswell insist that they know better.
It's a bit like me arguing, with say, Michael Jordan on the best way to arrange the playing roster in an NBL championship match. Who in their right mind would listen to me - someone who's never played the game, compared with arguably the greatest player of all time.
But the two clowns, with so much free time on their hands, continue to post such ridiculous, irrelevant, off topic and often absurd comments.
Finally to answer your question, I don't know what to believe! I don't except ET and I also think quite clearly that the mogul solution is almost certainly incorrect (on the balance of probabilities).
I enjoy reading your posts Paul and just to remind you, I almost always disagree with a couple of skeptics whose comments a almost always, "simply, plainly wrong".
Regards Nitram
Sasquatch wrote:
"I don't know why IBM Watson Research hasn't been contacted to help. They pioneered the most sophisticated scanning technology a decade ago. Not only that but they have the ability to supply the image analysis algorithms and CPU horsepower."
Well the answer to this is your probably the first person to suggest containing this firm.
If you have details of a person in this organization that might be able to help then that's great.
Could I ask please that you email Kevin Randle directly with a name and contact details (phone/email) so we can make contact.
Thank you and regards
Nitram.
All
If anyone else has any sensible/helpful suggestions as to how we can take the old/new scans and make them easier to read and/or if anyone has a friend or associate who might be will to assist with the reading of this memo could I also ask they either post the details here or alternatively contact Kevin instead by email.
I trust this is ok with you Kevin?
Thank you.
Regards
Nitram
Re obtaining better scans of the Ramey memo, wouldn't members of the Roswell Slides Research Group be the best source to suggest current computer programs that might help and even identify experts in the application of these devices?
. . . Or at least to locate, through their contacts during the RSRG analysis, other specialized computer programs that might be suitable for this task?
Hello Jeanne
Good suggestion regarding RSRG - this has already been implemented...
Thank you.
Regards
Nitram
Hi Kevin - A couple of questions:
(1) Do you have a rough idea of when uncompressed images will be made generally available? (From what you have said so far, I presume that the answer may simply be "When some other people get around to giving their permission").
(2) What software (if any) has already been tried out on the news scan to attempt to reduce noise/grain? I've started discussing a few possibilities with a couple of members of the RSRG, but since most of the members of the RSRG don't have the new scans they aren't really in a position to contribute at the moment.
(3) Is there any objective indication that the Ramey Memo (or whatever it should be called) is considered of significance to a significant part of the UFO community? I've collated discussions of it in various UFO journals and, well, there doesn't seem to be that much interest in it.
All the best,
Isaac
Nitram writes:
"There are three skeptics that write regularly on the blog and two of them a quite clueless - they know who they are. While their final conclusion (not ET) is on the balance of probabilities almost certainly correct - their logic in getting there is so ridiculously flawed it's hard not to laugh watching the "pro ET group" shoot them down."
He later chastises the 3 'clowns' who think they know better than the guys like Kevin who have been to Roswell and delved deeply into the whole case.
Yet Nitram still says we (i.e. the clueless ones) have almost certainly come to the right conclusions, whereas poor Kevin, despite his vastly greater knowledge and deep investigation of the case has, almost certainly, come to the wrong conclusions!
Absolutely astonishing! I suggest Nitram apologises to Kevin and his ET gang for implying that, despite all Kevin's hard work over the last 25 years, he has, regrettably got the wrong answer on the case, whereas we, the dumb and clueless ones who have done virtually nothing, have got the right answer on the case.
Perhaps hard investigatory work is just not worthwhile after all!
I feel vindicated at last.
Meanwhile, Nitram (Martin) continues to stay silent about his true beliefs.
Nitram:
Since you talk so much about the 'balance of probabilities', what would you say the probability is that someone who has never been to Roswell and never interviewed anyone connected with the case, knows better what the 'crashed disc' was than someone who has been there countless times, interviewed numerous witnesses of all kinds and written a zillion books on the subject?
You may stay silent if you wish - of course.
CDA
You don;t know better than DR or KR. You don't know more than Lance, but I would give you the edge over your cronie BB.
hat crashed was not ET is almost certainly more probable that ALL the other possible solutions out there - you certainly don't know more the case (than DR & KR) as your mogul explanation is badly flawed - but if you just argue "no" to ET then your almost certainly correct.
You understand that now?
CDA wrote:
"He later chastises the 3 'clowns' who think they know better than the guys like Kevin who have been to Roswell and delved deeply into the whole case."
(two clowns - not three)
"Yet Nitram still says we (i.e. the clueless ones) have almost certainly come to the right conclusions, whereas poor Kevin, despite his vastly greater knowledge and deep investigation of the case has, almost certainly, come to the wrong conclusions!"
(You have stated it is not ET and therefore you can lay claim to all other possible solutions, which in their entirety, are certainly more likely that what DR & KR believe.)
"Absolutely astonishing! I suggest Nitram apologises to Kevin and his ET gang for implying that, despite all Kevin's hard work over the last 25 years, he has, regrettably got the wrong answer on the case, whereas we, the dumb and clueless ones who have done virtually nothing, have got the right answer on the case."
(Maybe Paul can explain this better to you)
"Perhaps hard investigatory work is just not worthwhile after all!"
(We should be supporting the researchers for what they have been trying to do and I commend them all for this - even Lance supports them on their efforts to read the memo)
"I feel vindicated at last."
(congrats, now follow David's advice and go back to sleep)
"Meanwhile, Nitram (Martin) continues to stay silent about his true beliefs."
(I have already answered this - I "do not know" what crashed at Roswell in 1947)
Isaac Koi wrote:
Perhaps Kevin can answer question 1 for you and David question 3...
"(2) What software (if any) has already been tried out on the news scan to attempt to reduce noise/grain? I've started discussing a few possibilities with a couple of members of the RSRG, but since most of the members of the RSRG don't have the new scans they aren't really in a position to contribute at the moment."
Lance has been provided with the scans. If you send him an email I'm sure he will provide you with a link to access them (please note that due to copyright you must not publish these on the web). David (and others) have been using "Matlab software".
Isaac, do you have any suggestions for what other software could be used and the names of others who might be willing to assist with the process?
Thank you.
Regards
Nitram
Isaac Koi wrote: (3) Is there any objective indication that the Ramey Memo (or whatever it should be called) is considered of significance to a significant part of the UFO community? I've collated discussions of it in various UFO journals and, well, there doesn't seem to be that much interest in it.
I think it is summerizing how its "mantra" by Doctor David Rudiak and ?? have "no" importance, or inside the UFO community, and therefore for Science.
Well, that's ufology after all...
Gilles.
Blogger Gilles Fernandez said...
Isaac Koi wrote: (3) Is there any objective indication that the Ramey Memo (or whatever it should be called) is considered of significance to a significant part of the UFO community? I've collated discussions of it in various UFO journals and, well, there doesn't seem to be that much interest in it.
Double-Dutch > I think it is summerizing how its "mantra" by Doctor David Rudiak and ?? have "no" importance, or inside the UFO community, and therefore for Science. < Double-Dutch
Mantra > Well, that's ufology after all... < Mantra
Gilles.
Can't see there being a lot of interest in this, so the survey doesn't surprise me. There are thousands of 'official' UFO documents out there. To the general public, this will be unexciting, as it is just a memo. Has there ever been a memo that was world-famous or excited many thousands of people? Probably not, I guess.
The answers to 'Roswell' - if it involves 'aliens' - will ONLY come from thinking OUTSIDE the box, as well as inside the box, rather than merely from human memorabilia.
Those who can/could do that include (perhaps): George Adamski, Raymond Palmer, John Keel, Whitley Strieber.
Most have no more idea of what I mean by this, than I have of the meaning of Gilles Fernandez's above post.
Nitram Ang said:
"If anyone else has any sensible/helpful suggestions as to how we can take the old/new scans and make them easier to read and/or if anyone has a friend or associate who might be will to assist with the reading of this memo could I also ask they either post the details here or alternatively contact Kevin instead by email.
I trust this is ok with you Kevin?"
I hope so as this is the basis of the Randle Method. Please take your time and do it right, whatever the findings are. I don't want this memo to continue as another point of argument in this case!
John Space wrote:
"Does everyone agree that at the bottom of the document is "Ramey"? If so then this would be a message from Ramey to someone else. That would tend to support the Johnson handed him the copy theory."
BTW, I was the one who originally proposed the message read RAMEY at the bottom instead of photographer Johnson's RPIT group read of TEMPLE. The signature line always looked very "Rameyish" to me. I think everybody now agrees on this point (even BB seems to now agree)--it is truly the Ramey memo.
Thus agree with your first part, not the second. Since it is a message from Ramey to someone else, how would this support the idea that Johnson handed it to him? If anyone handed it to him instead of Ramey bringing it into the room himself clutched in his hand, then wouldn't it far more likely be one of Ramey's aides?
I am unaware of any interview where Johnson claimed to have picked up the message off Ramey's desk and then handed it to him. It seems very unlikely that he would be admitted to Ramey's office ALONE without anyone watching him, sort of like admitting someone to the Oval Office alone so they could rifle through the President's desk. That would be super sloppy security. (Ramey and also Roswell base was also reported by newspapers at this time saying that the matter was classified with a "security lid" imposed from Washington, indicating the memo about Roswell would be classified and not left in plain sight on Ramey's desk with no one around to keep Johnson away from it.)
At one point Johnson said it was an AP teletype bulletin he brought with him, then later withdrew the statement saying he was speculating. His story kept changing from his original one, becoming more and more elaborate, making himself the center of the story as the photographer of the real flying saucer debris instead of the photographer of the weather balloon garbage. Thus instead of Ramey immediately telling him that he thought it was a weather balloon, but would bring in his weather officer to make sure (as reported by his own newspaper back in 1947), Johnson changed the story to Ramey saying he didn't know what he had on his hands. He also tried to make the time of the photo about three hours earlier, even BEFORE the Roswell base press release hit the wire and there was even a story to cover, claiming Ramey owed his newspaper a favor and gave them an advance call, claiming also there was a witness to this, which he never produced.
The message addressee should be up in the address header. If you look up and left of Ramey's thumb, you can clearly make out the letters "VA". Thus I think the message is addressed to Gen. VAndenberg at the Pentagon, whom newspapers back then wrote Ramey was in contact with. (The stories said after the base press release hit the newswire and caused a press frenzy, Vandenberg dropped into the AAF press room to take charge and directed phone calls to Ramey and Roswell to supposedly get the facts. A much more private and secure way for the two to communicate would be by telex, encrypted during transmission. I think what Ramey is holding in his hand is a copy off the teletype machine of the (unencrypted) message.
Another point is that EVERYONE agrees that the "VICTIMS" phrase reads: "the ??????? of the wreck YOU forwarded to the (Ramey's thumb) ??? at Fort Worth, Tex. Whomever this was addressed to, he was ABOVE Ramey's pay grade since he issued the order. This is also consistent with the idea that Ramey's message was directed to Vandenberg, one of the few likely people above Ramey who could issue such an order.
This also demolishes the idea that this was Ramey's talking points or instructions for his press conference or a public press release. It clearly was an INTERNAL communication, general to general, not for public consumption. Ramey was briefing his superior on the latest.
> I don't know how anyone can claim to see anything at all.
I second that. The characters look like crushed spiders.
How do we know the letters are English and not paleo-Hebrew or Japanese kanji? Not from what we see, only from the context of the situation. "Knowing" it's English, people then discern the indiscernible. (No doubt Gilles and others could produce a text using words from their own mother tongues -- and no one would be able to say their readings are right or wrong.)
To read the memo, we need another spell of "slides" software magic. Until we get that, all interpretations are mere projections.
Nitram wrote:
> Perhaps Kevin can answer question 1 for you and David question 3...
Perhaps.
>> "(2) What software (if any) has already been tried out on the news scan to attempt to reduce noise/grain?"
> David (and others) have been using "Matlab software".
"Matlab" is computing language and environment, so referring to "Matlab software" is a bit like referring to "Windows software" i.e. doesn't refer to specific software. :)
> Isaac, do you have any suggestions for what other software could be used and the names of others who might be willing to assist with the process?
Well, I'm just a lawyer rather than a technical chap - so it's a bit of a shame that most of the members of the RSRG don't have the new scans they aren't really in a position to contribute to a relevant discussion. The RSRG members are all on Facebook and we found that forum quite useful for bouncing ideas around quickly. When several of us were online at the same time, we were able to have near real-time discussions of possibilities (which helped some of us avoid duplicating work and considerably accelerating progress). So, at the moment I'd just be giving a relatively uneducated opinion (which could probably be refined/corrected fairly quickly within the RSRG if everyone had access to some or all of the images) if I said that I'd start by discussing the possibility of straightening out the folds in the paper (possibly using Photoshop's Puppet Warp tool to create a mesh which is then distorted to straighten the lines of text) and then doing image enhancement in Lucis Pro 6 and/or some of the tools in the Fovea Pro package.
(I should say that I'm not sure that many of the RSRG members would be inclined to work on the Ramey memo. I note that no-one has given a positive answer to my question above about the perceived unimportance of the Ramey memo to most of the UFO community).
Dr David Rudiak wrote: Another point is that EVERYONE agrees that...
The CAPS lock emphasis is his own, not mine.
David,
Do you are stating here that ALL the participants of the 3 conditions/studies/groups - "pro UFO", "Atomic Bomb" and "Blind" - so N=176 of the Houran/Randle paper/experiment (2002) ALL aggreed to read "that"?
:p
Regards,
Gilles
@ Rudiak
Not if the memo Ramey wrote went to Johnson directly. This was a special photo op and it's possible that Ramey's office set it up and Johnson actually handed it back to him as a prop.
This assumes the text, of course, remains largely indecipherable which many claim is still the case. It's just too hard to get an accurate take on the actual context.
On the flip side isn't it also possible that it's a copy of a note Ramey sent back to Blanchard, hence the reference to something being forwarded to Fort Worth (from Roswell) to begin with?
Despite certain readings, "victims" could also be relevant in the event humans were injured or killed in some sort of classified crash, or perhaps even a clarification from Ramey that there were no victims, as if to clarify that there was some assumption there could have been.
David Rudiak wrote:
"Ramey and also Roswell base was also reported by newspapers at this time saying that the matter was classified with a "security lid" imposed from Washington, indicating the memo about Roswell would be classified and not left in plain sight on Ramey's desk with no one around to keep Johnson away from it."
All the more reason why Ramey would be holding the copy of the apparent telex in his hand rather than tossing it on his desk before posing for the photograph.
BB, why would this memo be handed to Johnson?
Isn't the needed technology primarily optical character recognition tech? I've searched around a bit looking for improved OCR products and services of recent vintage and there seem to be a number of them claiming improvements in the tech. My impression is that DR has been using OCR technology.
Is it possible that OCR applications to this document could be improved by first applying what used to be called 'posterization' to the image of the doc, registering only the strongest black dots and dropping out fainter ones including the many that occur outside the lines of the text? (This might well be a naieve suggestion, but I offer just in case it could prove helpful.)
Re the question whether people are currently interested in a more complete presentation of what the Ramey memo says, I think it's unquestionable that the memo will become a major object of interest if a clearer copy can be achieved. I do not understand why those interested in clarifying the text on the Roswell slides are not equally interested in this project.
Perhaps Kevin could devise a topic that will draw in both Michael Mu and Ed Gehrman -- on opposing sides. Then those two could debate each other -- for eternity -- while the rest of us move on.
Everyone would get what they want!
Gilles wrote:
The CAPS lock emphasis is his own, not mine.
David,
Do you are stating here that ALL the participants of the 3 conditions/studies/groups - "pro UFO", "Atomic Bomb" and "Blind" - so N=176 of the Houran/Randle paper/experiment (2002) ALL aggreed to read "that"?
No Gilles, I'm talking about various readers who have spent considerably more than the 17 average minutes of the Randle/Houran experiment and read considerably more than the average 3-1/2 words of the R/H paper. Again a link to where I have summarized comparison across the more SERIOUS readers putting in serious time and effort trying to read all or most of the memo:
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Ramey_memo_compare.html
The sole exception to someone reading "YOU forwarded" (or "YOU convey on"--same meaning) was Bob Koford (BK), who had "FOR evaluation". EVALUATION is one letter too long for what is actually there, therefore can't be correct. Everybody using correct word lengths agrees it reads YOU (not FOR), thus indicating the addressee of the memo ordered shipment of "THE ??????? OF THE WRECK". This person had to be very high up in the chain of command to have issued this order (instead of someone like Ramey doing it, a "mere" brigadier general).
BTW readers Brad Sparks, Glenn Fishbine, and William McNeff are self-described skeptics of a Roswell saucer crash (thus have different reads of the VICTIMS word, namely REMAINS and FINDING) but agree that after that is "YOU forwarded".
The point is, "YOU" is second-person and is the addressee of the memo (with Ramey the signing author). Again, this ALONE shows the memo is NOT instructions to Ramey from someone else, NOT Ramey's personal talking points for his press conference, NOT an AP teletype photographer Johnson handed to Ramey, and NOT a public press release about to be put out by Ramey.
This is a memo from Ramey to "YOU", a superior in the chain of command (who I believe from the "VA" in the address header is Gen. VAndenberg, acting AAF chief of staff). Ramey is briefing the superior on the latest happenings about Roswell.
The more complete context is: "...(something) NEAR OPERATION AT THE (location under Ramey's thumb) AND THE ??????? OF THE WRECK YOU FORWARDED TO THE....(someone/something under Ramey's thumb) AT FORT WORTH, TEX. Another big word here is OPERATION, in military parlance meaning something big and very important going on, usually classified, thus a lot more than just two guys going out and picking up a little balloon junk.
In the more complete context, FINDING or VIEWING OF THE WRECK makes no sense. Something real and physical (not abstract nouns like gerunds FINDING or VIEWING) was found in addition (the word AND) to something real and physical, THE ??????? OF THE WRECK.
The only two viable proposed words here would be REMAINS and VICTIMS for the disputed word. VICTIMS by OCR tests much better than REMAINS and VICTIMS is also the strong consensus word of the serious readers and in a reader poll I did on my website.
Jeanne Ruppert wrote:
"Ramey and also Roswell base was also reported by newspapers at this time saying that the matter was classified with a "security lid" imposed from Washington, indicating the memo about Roswell would be classified and not left in plain sight on Ramey's desk with no one around to keep Johnson away from it."
All the more reason why Ramey would be holding the copy of the apparent telex in his hand rather than tossing it on his desk before posing for the photograph.
Yes, I quite agree. An example quote from United Press: "Ramey said he couldn't let anybody look at the thing or photograph it because Washington had clamped a "security lid" on all but the sketchiest details."
Then Johnson is admitted totally UNSUPERVISED into Ramey's office to poke around something classified at the time? Doesn't make sense and conflicts with how story was reported back then.
@JR:
"Isn't the needed technology primarily optical character recognition tech?
* * *
"My impression is that DR has been using OCR technology."
I think David has been or is using more than just OCR software -- that's more specialized, requiring clearer linear text to properly "recognize" and then transmute into on-screen text than I suspect the obscuring grain in the Ramey memo permits, considering how dark and pixelated the text is, unfortunately.
I think Kevin said some time back something like "...if only James Bond Johnson had stood a foot or two closer..." when he took the photos that included the Ramey memo. 8^}
"Is it possible that OCR applications to this document could be improved by first applying what used to be called 'posterization' to the image of the doc, registering only the strongest black dots and dropping out fainter ones including the many that occur outside the lines of the text? (This might well be a naieve suggestion, but I offer just in case it could prove helpful.)
Your description of enhancing contrast by some algorithmic "lightning / cleaning up" of the image is a good one. Not sure what process or software would be best to apply to achieve that.
"Re the question whether people are currently interested in a more complete presentation of what the Ramey memo says, I think it's unquestionable that the memo will become a major object of interest if a clearer copy can be achieved. I do not understand why those interested in clarifying the text on the Roswell slides are not equally interested in this project."
I think I asked before in the prior post thread who were the members of the current group that have the new scans, and I think a few of the skeptics (like Lance) do have the scans, but it's unclear how many got the scans and just what they're doing, individually and in possible small groups, or what all software is being used, but properly structured peer review would be appropriate.
I would suggest someone consider a kind of "open sourcing" or really, crowd-sourcing sort of approach, in that if someone would post online only the sections in the photos showing the memo, with side by side variations in graduated dark and light, and highlighted excerpts of segments of text (nice to have an animated dark to light control slide option) something more might be discerned outside the main "inside" group working in parallel with others who could view higher resolution/bigger images and do some "crowd-sourced" investigation as a supplemental effort / process. That's sort of what the RSRG did, but not publicly.
That would also let anyone have at it, which could be problematical, but would deal with the suggestions of inappropriate secrecy being used regarding the pending memo investigation.
How can I get a scan, for example? I'd like to subject it to some software analysis myself at this point. Seriously. KR? DR? LM?
I just don't think the majority of the RSRG previous core members and their associates that investigated the slides are as interested in the Ramey memo, maybe in part because it's a much greater technical problem in that the mummy's placard had dual direction blurring, and a sort of lucky setting in SmartDeblur was able to resolve that blur effect to a reliable degree -- the Ramey memo text is simply too small, and the negatives film grain "smudging" or "pixelation" around the text's characters is so integrated, it's hard to say what current or better future scan tech and software will or even can do, to better discern a more reliable text.
That seems to be the immediate central problem -- the researchers involved haven't been able to make much progress, and nothing more definitive has emerged about what the text of the memo says, even now. I'm sure the investigators are a bit stymied and frustrated as a result.
TU David.
The H/R paper does not report all the details of the results, but maybe Kevin can say how much individuals of the 176 read "VICTIMS" (intra-group results would be interesting) or "the ??????? of the wreck YOU forwarded to the (Ramey's thumb) ??? at Fort Worth, Tex"? Seems to have some results for "Fort Worth" (52/176?) and maybe "remains" (1 individual?). You seem to imply that it is because they used too few time, but well, here are the results...
Concerning your own results (in your site and link above) and out "bad-debunking", how were your interactions between you all?
I mean how did you controle the ones NOT influenced by the others? You knew or have clues of the results and readings between you? Or?
Some skeptics or not regarding a Roswell crash in your sample, the individuals of your sample were "ufology" immersed. Again, out "bad debunking" or "hyper-criticism", I dont think it is the best sample (as neutral) to use here.
Regards,
Gilles
Good morning, to everybody.
When I first began to study the memo on my own, the "second" line was the one I concentrated my original efforts on.
I saw that word as most likely an "ation" word, but finding words that made sense in the -ation context was difficult.The two choices I ended up with were: CONVATION and FORMATION. Convation was dropped, for obvious reasons (I could only find one example of that "word" in the nineteen-forties, and it was most certainly a misspell), and formation worked, but : "YOU FORMATION"...well, that was ridiculous.
So, I guess EVALUATION was the only word that made any sense...but as David mentions, it is too long to really fit there.
I then asked myself "What if YOU was actually TOP?"...so: TOP FORMATION. Well, in actuality, whether that is the read or it isn't, I found that the phrase: TOP FORMATION was actually a military phrase,in vogue at the time. It appears in Roscoe Hillenkoetter's diary, and it seems to refer to extremely top brass taking charge. So, it does make sense in that context, but the wording together is very clumsy.
The other line that I concentrated most on was the "weather balloons" line, and my read is not very well accepted, I don't think, which is: ...THEY TURN OUT TO BE WEATHER BALLOONS HAS ON (RARE?), etc."
I hope everyone has a beautiful day.
/Bob
@ Jeanne
"BB, why would this memo be handed to Johnson?"
Not handed - sent by wire to Johnson's office; he brings it with him, hands it back to Ramey.
@ Rudiak
"The more complete context is: "...(something) NEAR OPERATION AT THE (location under Ramey's thumb) AND THE ??????? OF THE WRECK YOU FORWARDED TO THE....(someone/something under Ramey's thumb) AT FORT WORTH, TEX."
"Ramey is briefing the superior on the latest happenings about Roswell."
If we take what you're saying correctly, your claim is Vandenberg ordered the remains of the wreck to Fort Worth, and the memo Ramey is holding is an update Ramey is providing to Vandenberg signed by Ramey himself.
Your claim has always been the proper reading of the memo is the following:
"NEAR OPERATION AT THE RANCH AND THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK YOU FORWARDED TO THE TEAM AT FORT WORTH, TEX. S*S IN THE "DISK" THEY WILL SHIP FOR A1-8TH ARMYAF**BY B29-ST OR C47. WRIGHT AF ASSIST FLIGHTS AT ROSWELL. ASSURE THAT CIC-TEAM SAID THIS MISTAKEN MEANING OF STORY AND THINK LATE TODAY NEXT SENT OUT PR OF WEATHER BALLOONS WOULD WORK BETTER IF THEY ADD LAND DEMO RAWIN CREWS."
Nothing you're telling us now is any different than what you have been claiming all along, is it?
How does one account for Vandenberg "forwarding" anything to Fort Worth? He's in Washington so how does he do this? By an order on the phone?
The story line has always been that Ramey ordered the material be sent to him, not Vandenberg, in which case the reading makes little sense unless Vandenberg spoke to Blanchard first, made orders, then informed Ramey afterwards in which case Ramey was now obliged to update Vandenberg.
Brian -
This is just another example of you inventing a story line that is not supported by the evidence. If you read Johnson's interviews, you see that he was told by his boss to head out to the base. There is nothing to suggest that Ramey had arranged this. Nothing to support the idea that Ramey had sent anything to the newspaper. It came about because of all the chatter on the news wires about the recovery and that it was being sent to a higher headquarters, which in the case of Roswell was Fort Worth.
To quote Johnson, "... I got into this because the AP picked up that they were flying it [the debris] down there [Fort Worth]."
But keep making stuff up...
Brian Bell said...
"@ Jeanne
"BB, why would this memo be handed to Johnson?"
Not handed - sent by wire to Johnson's office; he brings it with him, hands it back to Ramey."
See David Rudiak's compelling reasoning concerning the 'you' addressed in the memo.
Steve Sawyer said:
"I would suggest someone consider a kind of "open sourcing" or really, crowd-sourcing sort of approach, in that if someone would post online only the sections in the photos showing the memo, with side by side variations in graduated dark and light, and highlighted excerpts of segments of text (nice to have an animated dark to light control slide option) something more might be discerned outside the main "inside" group working in parallel with others who could view higher resolution/bigger images and do some "crowd-sourced" investigation as a supplemental effort / process. That's sort of what the RSRG did, but not publicly."
I think that's an excellent suggestion. The more eyes on this text the better, especially given varying background abilities and interests concerning the grammar and syntax of standard American English and in the variety of word choices available to ordinary people [i.e., not skilled writers]. As David Rudiak noted long ago, context is most significant in construing what the author of the memo intended to communicate and to whom.
All -
I'm trying to find a venue to host the scans so that we can get more eyes on them. Some of the material is up using a skeptics personal site but he asked for access to be limited. I've suggested to David that he might put them up on his web site though I don't know if it is possible for him to do it. We've always thought that the more people who have access, the better. We began this all quietly with plans to release all the scans, but so far we just haven't found a venue... and I have asked for anyone with a constructive suggestion to let me know.
@Kevin -
I remain reasonably keen to share the scans with other members of the RSRG (although frankly I'm not sure how many of them are keen to see the scans...).
Is webspace the only issue now preventing sharing the scans or do copyright/credit issues remain a concern?
I have the scans and also have webspace that can be used (at least temporarily) to share them.
Obviously, I would not want my webspace to be used to share the scans publicly unless and until any relevant permissions are given.
There are lots of good photo hosting/sharing site options for free or low cost.
See/read the following:
http://lifehacker.com/5808625/five-best-web-sites-for-image-hosting-and-photo-sharing/
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/best-photography-sites,review-2243.html
http://online-image-hosting-review.toptenreviews.com/
Etcetera...
@ Kevin
If we are discussing Johnson's photos, the teletype, the text interpretations, and just how the "memo" got into the pictures in the first place I hardly think "This is just another example of me inventing a story line that is not supported by the evidence."
Unless you have the answers and haven't shared them, then it's up for grabs as to what the memo is, what it says, who wrote it, and just how exactly it came to be. But of course we know that you don't like any suggestions that might challenge your ETH since your mind is already made up. You seem always to take offense to any alternatives where questions remain while you also claim to be searching for the "truth", which for you can only be ET. This is the ingrained "bias" constantly referenced but ignored by you and others.
In 1996 Johnson exchanged a series of emails with Joshua Shapiro who was at the time attempting to demonstrate the reality of the fictitious alien film.
Johnson explained his version of the story (again) in these emails where he was also directly quoted as stating:
"There are several inaccuracies since Randle put words in my mouth to conform to his own theories as to the events (Gen Exon has the same criticism of Randle)".
"It must have been only after I departed his office that he (Gen. Ramey) that he was ordered by AAF HQ (headquarters) in Washington (D.C.) to issue the Raywin Kite/Weather Balloon Cover-up Story. I know of no evidence that there was a switch of wreckage in Gen. Ramey's office to support the cover-up story."
"After I returned from WWII service in the AAF I also was the military editor. It was in that context that I was assigned in mid afternoon on July 8, 1947, by my city editor to go out to FWAAF (later Carswell AFB) and get a shot of a 'flying disc' the Air Corps had "captured" and was flying in from Roswell AAF. I now think I arrived at General Ramey's office within less than an hour after the debris arrived and it was for some reason spread out on the carpet in the general's office."
"As far as is now known I was the only photographer or reporter to see or photograph the debris in the general's office since no one else has been identified as such and no other photos have turned up. A FWAAF PIO phototographer may have taken the Newton photo to accompany the "cover up" story but I do not know any details. Now I do not think there was a "grand scheme" by the AAF to "set me up" with the photo. I have no reason to believe other than that at that time they simply did not know what they had. I am convinced that there was not enough time or expertise (Hollywood set decorators!) at FWAAF to provide a "dummy double" of a "weather balloon" as Kevin Randle has somehow decided."
While it's true he was asked by his editor to go to FWAAFB to take photos, do you think somehow his editor just had a "hunch" to send him there and that he just happened to "stumble" onto an unplanned photo op?
Clearly there was communication to the press that the opportunity was presented (possibly exclusive communication) and that may have easily come from a wire message from military sources.
Of course you'll have some reason to back the Vandenberg theory despite no real evidence.
BB wrote:
"How does one account for Vandenberg "forwarding" anything to Fort Worth? He's in Washington so how does he do this? By an order on the phone?"
Certainly by an order on the telephone or by telex. If Ramey were a more careful writer and/or communicating at leisure rather than under pressure to timely report on and manage the situation unfolding at Roswell and Ft. Worth, he might have written "that you had forwarded to Ft.Worth" or "that you ordered to be forwarded to Ft. Worth." Who had ordered the forwarding would not be ambiguous to the recipient, the addressee, of the message.
BB - seriously?
You continue to write such nonsense...
"Unless you have the answers and haven't shared them, then it's up for grabs as to what the memo is, what it says, who wrote it, and just how exactly it came to be. But of course we know that you don't like any suggestions that might challenge your ETH since your mind is already made up. You seem always to take offense to any alternatives where questions remain while you also claim to be searching for the "truth", which for you can only be ET. This is the ingrained "bias" constantly referenced but ignored by you and others."
BB - what is your IQ?
Kevin has stated in the past that he doesn't necessarily believe the memo itself has anything to do with the Roswell incident. Indeed some years ago when we discussed the key word "VICTIMS" he only gave it a 10% chance (although I'm sure this has risen a bit as a result of some recent work that he (not you) is aware of.)
I think most people, would agree, that "Ramey" is the name in the bottom right corner.
If you wish to ask a question from time to time I'm sure that's OK - but please cut down on the ridiculous statements and claims you make. You quoted statement above has many flaws and is so laughable I just only hope Kevin & others doesn't waste their time bothering to respond.
@ Nitram
What I wrote references quotes from Johnson himself. As far as Vandenberg is concerned you don't have any evidence he wrote the message (just Rudiak's claims that he did).
Besides, why should anyone listen to a guy (or woman) who hides behind his statements to protect himself. You must have something to hide Nitram which certain raises credibility issues around your statements and claims. For all we know you're a 12 year old kid playing on his computer.
Brian – Part 1
What is the color of the sky in your world because it clearly is not blue?
You said, partially quoting me, “If we are discussing Johnson's photos, the teletype, the text interpretations, and just how the "memo" got into the pictures in the first place I hardly think "This is just another example of me inventing a story line that is not supported by the evidence."
You invented the idea that Ramey had called the newspaper to invite a reporter out to his office based on no evidence whatsoever. Using your logic I could say practically anything about it. I don’t need evidence, witness testimony or documentation. I just need to make something up.
You said, “Unless you have the answers and haven't shared them, then it's up for grabs as to what the memo is, what it says, who wrote it, and just how exactly it came to be. But of course we know that you don't like any suggestions that might challenge your ETH since your mind is already made up. You seem always to take offense to any alternatives where questions remain while you also claim to be searching for the "truth", which for you can only be ET. This is the ingrained "bias" constantly referenced but ignored by you and others.”
Please explain how my suggestion that your story has no basis in fact is somehow an ETH bias by me. I made no reference to anything other than the fact you have no evidence at all. You just came up with the idea. And you’re continuing banging the drum of my bias does not make the statement accurate. Maybe we ignore it because, like many other things you claim, it isn’t true.
You say, “In 1996 Johnson exchanged a series of emails with Joshua Shapiro who was at the time attempting to demonstrate the reality of the fictitious alien film.
“Johnson explained his version of the story (again) in these emails where he was also directly quoted as stating:
"There are several inaccuracies since Randle put words in my mouth to conform to his own theories as to the events (Gen Exon has the same criticism of Randle)".
And this is not true either. I have all the interviews on tape. I provided an edited copy to Johnson as a courtesy, showing him several places where he said the things I had printed. He then alleged that I had edited the tapes for some nefarious purpose. At that point I sent him copies of the tapes and the transcripts (twice) and the best he could do was find a place where I have left out a conjunction. When others quoted Johnson on this, I sent them copies of the tapes as well, asking them to point out the inaccuracies. I never even received the courtesy of a reply because all the disputed claims were on the tapes and in Johnson’s own words. He even said that I had taped him without his knowledge and you hear me ask, on tape, if he minded if I recorded him. So even that was a lie by him.
Stan Friedman raised the issue of Exon. I sent Exon a copy of the book in which he was quoted and copies of the tape. Exon acknowledged that the quotes were accurate in a letter to me that has been published. This was Johnson making up another story (well not completely but the information was inaccurate.)
Brian - Part 2
You quote Johnson as saying, "It must have been only after I departed his office that he (Gen. Ramey) that he was ordered by AAF HQ (headquarters) in Washington (D.C.) to issue the Raywin Kite/Weather Balloon Cover-up Story. I know of no evidence that there was a switch of wreckage in Gen. Ramey's office to support the cover-up story."
This is Johnson attempting to enhance his importance in the Roswell story. In the interviews I have with him, he says, no fewer than seven times that he wrote the July 9 article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in which the last paragraph said that Ramey said it was a weather balloon. In my first interview with Johnson dated February 27, 1989 or six years before Shaprio, he said, “I took two pictures and then they said…’Oh, we’ve found out what it is and you know, it’s a weather balloon…” Please note that Johnson said “two pictures” and that he acknowledged he was told by Ramey it was a weather balloon.
You quote Johnson as saying, "After I returned from WWII service in the AAF I also was the military editor. It was in that context that I was assigned in mid afternoon on July 8, 1947, by my city editor to go out to FWAAF (later Carswell AFB) and get a shot of a 'flying disc' the Air Corps had "captured" and was flying in from Roswell AAF. I now think I arrived at General Ramey's office within less than an hour after the debris arrived and it was for some reason spread out on the carpet in the general's office."
I will note for the record that in 1947 it was the Army Air Forces. The Air Corps as such had ceased to exist in 1942.
Please note that he said he was assigned by his editor and there is no mention of any sort of invitation from Ramey in this. And I mention again, Johnson said, “That’s when I got into it because the AP picked up that they were flying it down there.” Again, nothing about Ramey inviting them out to his office. A story that came in over the wire that Cullen Greene (Johnson’s editor) assigned him to go out to see what was happening.
You quote Johnson as saying, "As far as is now known I was the only photographer or reporter to see or photograph the debris in the general's office since no one else has been identified as such and no other photos have turned up. A FWAAF PIO phototographer may have taken the Newton photo to accompany the "cover up" story but I do not know any details. Now I do not think there was a "grand scheme" by the AAF to "set me up" with the photo. I have no reason to believe other than that at that time they simply did not know what they had. I am convinced that there was not enough time or expertise (Hollywood set decorators!) at FWAAF to provide a "dummy double" of a "weather balloon" as Kevin Randle has somehow decided."
Johnson himself denied that he had taken the two pictures of Marcel, which would mean there was another photographer in there somewhere. I believe Johnson took them. The other photo was probably taken by Major Charles Cashon, the PIO, or a sergeant working for him. If you look at the pictures, it is quite clear that they show a weather balloon (the black mass in the rear) and the degraded remains of a rawin target. So there is a weather balloon and rawin in Ramey’s office and that is what Johnson photographed. There is no dispute here, unless you buy Johnson’s claim that it was the real stuff.
Brian - Part 3
You said, “While it's true he was asked by his editor to go to FWAAFB to take photos, do you think somehow his editor just had a "hunch" to send him there and that he just happened to "stumble" onto an unplanned photo op?”
No, I think that the Cullen Greene, an experienced editor, thought that the material coming from Roswell would be shown to Ramey and Greene thought they would have an opportunity for an exclusive. I think it was good work on the part of the editor and that Johnson showed up with his camera. Had there been nothing in Ramey’s office, Johnson would probably have taken a picture of the general.
You say, “Clearly there was communication to the press that the opportunity was presented (possibly exclusive communication) and that may have easily come from a wire message from military sources.”
It is obvious that the message was the AP news wire as has been demonstrated by the time line created and published in The Illini. The military source was Walter Haut in Roswell and not some exclusive communication from Ramey. There were radio stations in Fort Worth as well as Dallas and there were newspapers in Dallas. It is clear from the documentation available that there were many telephone calls from the press into Ramey’s office… Major Kirtan (Curtan in the FBI telex) was talking to other newspapers. There was no exclusivity… unless you have some documentation to back up this claim… I thought not.
You say, “Of course you'll have some reason to back the Vandenberg theory despite no real evidence.”
Just where in the hell have you seen me say anything like that? I have suggested that my thinking is that Johnson brought the teletype with him (which I know annoys David). I have said nothing to imply that I accept the Vandenberg theory at this point. This is just another one of your red herrings, thrown out because you simply can’t accept the idea that I might actually know more about this than you do.
And yes, I have tapes of all my interviews with Johnson including the rather sad one where you can hear him trying to explain the discrepancies between what he told me originally and his various and multiple later versions.
Kevin Randle wrote in relation to Brian Bell:
"you simply can’t accept the idea that I might actually know more about this than you do."
So tell us Brian - do you think you know than than Kevin (and David Rudiak too) on the subject of the Ramey memo?
What about the "Roswell Incident" in general then - do you think you know how about it than DR & KR?
In the light of a brief discussion of my posts above, I've been asked by a fellow member of the RSRG if I can share the new scans with the group. At the moment, I don't even know whose permission is needed for this to happen.
Kevin wrote:
"I have suggested that my thinking is that Johnson brought the teletype with him (which I know annoys David)."
It annoys me because ALL the evidence is against such a theory:
1. The message is signed by RAMEY (I think all SERIOUS readers--people who have put in real time into reading this--now agree on this point, even some skeptical ones), just one indication that it is an internal MILITARY message, not a civilian one that Johnson brought from the outside.
2. Nothing in the wording remotely matches any civilian news bulletin or story, including AP. (I've looked into this extensively.)
3. Use of 2nd person (YOU FORWARDED), again showing this could not be civilian wire story but an internal message to higher up signed by RAMEY.
4. Ramey stating publicly the subject matter was classified from Washington (thus message on Roswell not something Ramey or aide would likely leave lying around unprotected on his desk, nor would Johnson likely be admitted to Ramey's office unattended so that he could rifle through Ramey's desk).
5. Johnson himself retracted an earlier BS statement of his that he brought an AP bulletin with him and gave it to Ramey, saying he was merely speculating. (see Dennis Balthauser interview with him) I'm currently unaware of any interview where Johnson claimed he might have found the message on Ramey's desk and then gave it to him. (However, he did also LATER claim he opened some of the debris packages and posed them on the floor, just more of his later BS changes of story to make himself a more central figure.)
6. As you know better than anyone (and just went over with BB), Johnson in his old age began lying a LOT about his alleged role in the Roswell story, changing his original taped interview story with you to one making himself a heroic figure in the Roswell saga and then accusing you having altered your early taped recordings with him.
So with all this, how in the world could Johnson have brought the message with him, a story even he finally disowned?
In general, if you're going to throw all of Johnson's testimony out the window, then you should do the same with others who have changed their story over the years regardless of their position pro or con ET. If one goes they all go - including Haut.
And David if this is a communique from Ramey to Vandenberg, can you explain why it isn't in standard protocol format?
Now if you say that perhaps the memo was a "personal" message from Ramey rather than an official one, why did they do that?
Of course anything you might propose would be a guess since we don't know for sure why, but according to the above even KR would say that is "making things up" since there is no way to know for sure.
> It annoys me because ALL the evidence is against such a theory:
Modesty, David. There is no evidence in the Ramey memo -- yet. You are entitled to speculate about the type but your certainty is not SERIOUS, it is most absurd.
(This also applies to anyone else who feels certain about their readings. Absurd.)
David & All,
Again a sincere question (no bad agenda, bad debunking or dunno what): there exist historiographical military messages, memo, or dunno what, but military, you had "exhumed" using/with "DISC" or "DISK" inside? I mean with the "" between disc or disk?
Regards,
Gilles
Brian -
After all this, your take away is that if you throw out all of Johnson's testimony, why, you have throw out everyone who has added to or changed a story. Really? You believe that to be a wise move rather than look at it on a case by case basis. And just for the record, I don't throw out all of Johnson's testimony... only that which came after Bill Moore and Jaime Shandera "interviewed" him.
Oh, and just so you know, there are "back channel" communications between general officers that would be more akin to email of today than formal communications in the past. So, if it was a general to general communication, you might not have all the formality that you would expect. And they would do that to by-pass some of those on the "net" who might see it, and to discuss things that they didn't want generally known.
Which is not to say that this is what happened, only that it is a possibility.
A 7th item that could be added to the list against the Ramey memo being a civilian wire service story brought by photographer Johnson is the fact that WEATHER BALLOONS is in the message (UNANIMOUS agreement), yet there was no official weather balloon story yet from Ramey or the military at the time, thus no civilian wire story to that effect when Johnson was sent to the base by his editor.
Further the PLURAL "weather balloonS" did NOT appear in any news story until the next day, and always in the context that the civilian and military weather services sent up hundreds of weather balloonS every day. But Ramey's weather officer Newton had yet to make his appearance and ID the debris in Ramey's office as being being the same sent up by 80 weather stations around the country, also quoted by AP (Johnson's newspaper's wire service) as saying "Newton said he had sent up identical balloonS to this one during the invasion of Okinawa to determine ballistics information for heavy guns."
So "balloonS" not "weather balloonS" in Newton quotes, and something that he said well AFTER Johnson was sent to base, took photos, and left again. So how could "weather balloonS" appear in a wire service story BEFORE it was ever brought up for the press and eventually published? That would require another time travel theory.
Kevin wrote:
After all this, your take away is that if you throw out all of Johnson's testimony, why, you have throw out everyone who has added to or changed a story. Really? You believe that to be a wise move rather than look at it on a case by case basis. And just for the record, I don't throw out all of Johnson's testimony... only that which came after Bill Moore and Jaime Shandera "interviewed" him.
Agreed. Johnson's original story was very straight-forward. His editor sent him to the base to cover the story after an AP bulletin said Ramey was involved. (We know exactly which bulletin this was from the published Daily Illini story: www.roswellproof.com/AP_Chronology.html -- it was the 4:53 CST AP bulletin first mentioning Ramey, saying Ramey had sent the "disk" (in quotes) to Wright Field, Ohio)
Johnson said he entered the office and immediately noticed the acrid smell of the decaying rubber balloon and wondered why Ramey would have smelly junk like that in his office. (I always found this statement interesting because Johnson is the ONLY witness to ever mention any sort of smell associated with any debris. I even asked Jesse Marcel Jr. about this, who examined and handled debris clearly brought in from the field by his father, and he said there was no smell to it.)
Johnson also said originally that Ramey told him he suspected it was a weather device. This was also reported in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Johnson's newspaper. The point here is that Johnson's ORIGINAL story to Kevin was backed up by the newspaper story.
http://www.roswellproof.com/FortWorthST_July9.html
"As soon as the "disk" was brought into General Ramey's office, he and Colonel Dubose tabbed it as a weather device. The weather officer on duty at the time, Warrant Officer Newton, merely made identification positive."
Later (when trying to push the idea that it was real flying saucer debris and he, Johnson, was therefore the great photographer of real FS debris) he claimed Ramey told him he had no idea what it was.
AP based its primary Roswell story on that FWST story where Ramey is said all along knowing it was a weather device, and Johnson in ORIGINAL interviews, MULTIPLE TIMES, took credit for writing the AP story. When it was pointed out the AP and FWST stories conflicted with his NEW story of Ramey not knowing what it was, Johnson suddenly disowned credit for the AP story and instead claimed Kevin had lied about what he originally said, even somehow supposedly "editing" the tapes to change what he said.
The point here is not only did Johnson change his story, but the new story was clearly fabricated and not backed up, like his original story was. Johnson also tried to cover up his lies by falsely accusing Kevin of misquoting him. However, there is no reason to throw out his ORIGINAL testimony. It was solid, with some print documentation, totally plausible, and not extreme or self-contradictory as his later stories were.
The best I could read Johnson (with whom I had some email exchanges later on) is that he decided to change his story on some sort of later old-age ego trip to be a central character in Roswell as the flying saucer debris photographer. Another character like this on the other side was Mogul engineer Charles Moore, who also started lying a lot in his old age in order to take credit as the guy who caused the fabled Roswell incident. I reject his obvious lies and self-aggrandizement, but certainly not everything he said, such as Mogul Project details that had nothing to do with taking credit for Roswell.
> the fact that WEATHER BALLOONS is in the message (UNANIMOUS agreement)
Unanimous as defined by Rudiak: SERIOUS people; that is, those who agree with Rudiak.
This manner of reasoning is COMICAL.
Gilles F. wrote:
Again a sincere question (no bad agenda, bad debunking or dunno what): there exist historiographical military messages, memo, or dunno what, but military, you had "exhumed" using/with "DISC" or "DISK" inside? I mean with the "" between disc or disk?
Gilles,
Just gave links in above posts to two examples of where "disk" was put in quotes: the Daily Illini Roswell story and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram story. Here are some more examples, from http://www.roswellproof.com/press_coverage.html. Note phrases like "flying saucer" and "flying disc" are also used interchangeably and often (not always) placed in quotes.
Bangkok Post, July 9, 1947
http://www.roswellproof.com/Bangkok_Post_July9.html
Headline: "Rewards Offered in U.S. But No “Discs” Show Up". Story: He [Haut] added the “disc” had been turned over to the airfield through the sheriff’s office."
Phoenix Arizona Republic, July 10, 1947
http://www.roswellproof.com/INS_July9.html
"'Flying Disc' Stories Blow Up Under Study"
"CHICAGO, July 9--(INS)--Reports of "flying discs" diminished sharply tonight... The spectacular report from Fort Worth, Tex., that an eastern New Mexico rancher had found a so-called "flying disc" was spiked by army air force officials. THE "DISC" proved to be nothing more than the ragged, stained remnants of a weather observation balloon. Officers at army air force headquarters in Washington were reported "displeased" with public relations officials at the army air base at Roswell, N. M. The original report that the weather equipment was a "disc" came from that station."
Washington Post
http://www.roswellproof.com/Washington_Post_July9.html
"AAF 'Flying Saucer' Merely Weather Box-Kite"
"For three hectic hours last night, the Army Air Forces--and the world--thought it actually had possession of one of those fabulous "flying saucers"... News tickers yesterday afternoon flashed the word that a "flying disc" had been found on a ranch in New Mexico... Then, a few hours later and nearly two days after the "disc" had been in official hands, it was rudely exposed as an imposter."
That should give you some idea. Also see my web pages for more examples:
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/ETH-in-1947.html
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/ETH-in-1947-2.html
UFO researcher Barry Greenwood has been a promoter of the idea that the Ramey memo is a civilian wire story. Here is a rebuttal I wrote to that published in the Fortean Times, showing that all of his arguments were wrong:
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Fortean_Times.html
(Brad Sparks, more skeptic on Roswell than anything else, also tore into Greenwood with a lengthy rebuttal, which unfortunately is no longer at the cufos website.
Greenwood was also more recently pushing line 2, second paragraph of the memo reading: "WARREN HAUGHT, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER AT ROSWELL, SAID." and further claimed this matched newspaper stories. Kevin did a blog on this:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/09/ramey-memo-and-barry-greenwood.html
And I did a 6 part detailed rebuttal in the comments section, e.g. pointing out that it DIDN'T really match what the newspapers wrote, and Greenwood was force-fitting the read by ignoring spaces between words and trying to turn two words into one (e.g. where he has RELATIONS is really unambiguously two words, XX XXXXXX and "HAUGHT" is also two words XX XXX).
David Rudiak wrote: "Brad Sparks, more skeptic on Roswell than anything else, also tore into Greenwood with a lengthy rebuttal, which unfortunately is no longer at the cufos website".
Here you go David:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100714154052/http://www.cufon.org/contributors/Sparks/Sparks_Rebut_Ramey_Message.pdf
Terry wrote:
"the fact that WEATHER BALLOONS is in the message (UNANIMOUS agreement)
Unanimous as defined by Rudiak: SERIOUS people; that is, those who agree with Rudiak."
What do you think those "two words in question" are please?
Regards
Nitram
Terry -
Before David jumps in here, I will point out that there are some universally accepted words in the memo. A good quality scan and a magnifying glass will show the words weather balloons and Fort Worth Texas. There are other places where there a multiple interpretations and some places where a majority of those who have looked at the memo agree on the words.
@Nitram
> What do you think those "two words in question" are please?
See my first comment.
Put more succinctly: I do not know.
Unfortunately, some people are incapable of typing these words.
@Kevin
> there are some universally accepted words in the memo.
> the words weather balloons
According to one of David's links, Barry Greenwood disagreed with that reading, so not universal.
Is that why so many people claim to read words in the Ramey memo, because in ufology, words don't have meaning?
Kevin, I encourage the effort to get a better look at the Ramey memo. But the certainty with which people speak about the text right now is shameful. Speculation should be paired with modesty.
Hi Terry
I agree with you that SOME people are incapable of typing or speaking the words "I do not know". Dr Randle is certainly NOT such a person.
Regarding what crashed at Roswell in July 1947 - "I do not know" however I think both ET and mogul are extremely unlikely and they are really the only two possible solutions sitting on the table right now.
Having said that, I am surprised that anyone would try and claim the "two words in question" are NOT weather balloons.
I have to agree with Kevin 100% that some of the words are clearly identifiable.
But I do appreciate your honestly in stating you don't know what these words are.
Regards
Nitram
> Dr Randle is certainly NOT such a person.
You meant the other Dr R, perhaps?
> I am surprised that anyone would try and claim the "two words in question" are NOT weather balloons.
I make no claim for what they are not.
But all this is irrelevant. Why can't people just wait for the results of the current effort to get a more clear image? Why fight it out now, before we have it?
Terry =
I will revise my statement to: reading of "weather balloons" and "Fort Worth, Texas" are nearly universal.
I will note that there are some other words in the text that seem to be obvious to me but there is no real consensus for them.
For those wondering if there is a classification marking on the memo, at the very top it looks as if the document has been rubber stamped but I can't see what it says.
Clear images have been supplied to a number of people of the skeptical ideology and on the other end of the spectrum.
"Terry the censor" inanely commented:
@Kevin
> there are some universally accepted words in the memo.
> the words weather balloons
According to one of David's links, Barry Greenwood disagreed with that reading, so not universal.
Really Terry? One of my links? With Barry Greenwood disagreeing with "weather balloons"? Pulling a Brian Bell on us and making up nonexistent quotes?
Barry Greenwood has never commented on the wording down there, not to my knowledge, and not on any link I've ever posted. He has commented on the wording two lines up and made several (bogus) arguments that this is really a civilian teletype message, but nothing about "weather balloons". (see e.g., www.greenwoodufoarchive.com/uhr/uhr11.pdf) Prove me wrong.
I have yet to see a single person who HAS commented on the wording there who has ever disagreed with "weather balloons". And by this, I mean people who spend more than 2 seconds looking at the memo. SERIOUS readers are people who put in a decent amount of time and attempt to fill in most of the blanks, or people who have acquired some experience and expertise in analyzing the message. Difficult crossword puzzles aren't instantly solved either. You have to get a little dirty and put in the time and effort.
Roswell saucer skeptics/pro-Mogul researchers like William McNeff and Glenn Fishbine of MUFON (in my group of comparison reads at www.roswellproof.com/Ramey_memo_compare.html) also agree on "weather balloons". Brad Sparks, who started out a big skeptic, reads "weather balloons". It isn't just "believers" who read it there. "Weather balloons" easily fits into a "pro" or "anti" Roswell context, as either the official cover story or what was really found.
No doubt if Terry scours the planet he could find some who would not read "weather balloons". You could similarly find people who still believe the Earth is flat. Then guys like Terry will have some pathetic personal triumph declaring that evil Rudiak is wrong and the consensus is only 99.9%, not 100%.
In REAL science, or any other types of human knowledge, one is almost always dealing with semi-ambiguous, noisy data calling for interpretation by EXPERTS (you know, those people who put in some actual serious time to learn the subject matter). With some ambiguity there (plus personal prejudices and maybe corruption involved), there will always be some level of disagreement with the consensus view If one waited for perfect data and 100% consensus on everything, we would never get anywhere.
Thus there is VERY STRONG consensus among climate science EXPERTS that climate change is quite real and has a strong human component (anywhere from ~80% to 97% so agree depending on poll and polling technique). Probably 98% of scientists in relevant fields believe in evolution. There are always the holdouts, some with legitimate concerns about the consensus, some with personal biases like from religious upbringing, or getting paid off by big oil to be vocal public contrarians to climate change.
But if you ask the general public, i.e. nonexperts (like people who put in zero time studying the Ramey memo and demand perfect clarity before accepting anything), then percentages are much lower. That's what happens when subject matter gets politicized and people are unwilling or too lazy to look at the actual data, get familiar with it, and try to give it a fair shake.
Portions of the Ramey memo have always been clear enough to read with little or no ambiguity, thus strong, even unanimous consensus reads around those words, three examples being AT FORT WORTH, TEX., THE "DISC", and WEATHER BALLOONS. That the Ramey memo is totally unreadable as-is is a myth promulgated by those with an agenda. Demanding improved or perfect clarity first before accepting ANYTHING read, is the pseudo "critical thinker" equivalent of "Waiting for Godot".
Isaac Koi wrote:
David Rudiak wrote: "Brad Sparks, more skeptic on Roswell than anything else, also tore into Greenwood with a lengthy rebuttal, which unfortunately is no longer at the cufos website".
Here you go David:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100714154052/http://www.cufon.org/contributors/Sparks/Sparks_Rebut_Ramey_Message.pdf
Thank you Isaac. I suggest SERIOUS people who really want to learn something more about the Ramey memo and why it is definitely a military message (and why Barry Greenwood's civilian teletype argument is completely absurd) should give this a read. Some relevant excerpts below concerning my statement that there is 100% consensus on some words such as WEATHER BALLOONS.
As to his biases, Brad describes himself thusly:
As the original and first Roswell skeptic going back to early 1978 and preceding Phil Klass, it can hardly be claimed that I am pushing some pro-ETH agenda. That is such a tired, worn-out ad hominem rhetorical strategy anyway.
As to the easy to read words he writes:
As I noted back in 1980 and 1985, the easiest words to read in the Ramey Message are the plural words "WEATHER BALLOONS" along with words "AT FORT WORTH, TEX." and " "DISC" " (in quotes). There is really no dispute and can be no serious dispute about these words. Yet Greenwood cannot find them ALL TOGETHER [emphasis mine] in any of the wire service stories he claims "matches perfectly" with the Ramey Message, and the plural phrase "WEATHER BALLOONS" cannot be found at all anywhere in July 8 reporting (more on this below)...
Note, it does NOT say that Greenwood doesn’t see WEATHER BALLOONS (like "Terry the Censor" claims). Greenwood very clearly says in his original article ( www.greenwoodufoarchive.com/uhr/uhr11.pdf ) that he recognizes AT FORT WORTH, TEX. and “DISC” (in quotes) as being in the Ramey message (with ZERO commentary about “weather balloons”), but then claims that because he can find the same short phrase or isolated word in period newspaper articles that this is somehow powerful evidence that the message is really a civilian teletype. Brad rips this argument to shreds in his rebuttal.
But another point Brad is making here is that nowhere can you find the three definite words/phrases TOGETHER in the same bulletin/article (and you cannot find the plural “weather balloonS” anywhere except in bulletins or news articles written well after the Ramey message was photographed). This is not remotely the same as Greenwood allegedly denying "WEATHER BALLOONS" is in the Ramey message.
More commentary by Brad on these three heavily agreed-upon or unanimously agreed-upon phrases/word:
If you check there in Karl's [Pflock’s] book you will see that I had read the clearest word "FORT WORTH, TEX." and " "DISC" " and "WEATHER BALLOONS" way back in 1985—which immediately tells you the entire message concerns the Roswell incident and not the base barbecue or softball league (the words appear spread over both main paragraphs above and below the fold). Most people can see these words and there is very little dispute and can be no serious dispute on these readings, except by those wanting to engage in frivolous time-wasting argument for sake of creating trouble (in internet lingo they're called "trolls" those who do that sort of thing).
Yep, Brad’s last comment is the perfect description of what “Terry the Censor” is doing here--trolling.
Terry (with a slight bow to David)
I went back to Barry Greenwood's document, "Ramey Memo Redux - Line 5," and note that I saw nothing to suggest that he disagreed with the reading of what is considered Line 3 that says, "At Fort Worth, Tex." He agreed with that interpretation and I say again that a good quality blow up of the photograph and a magnifying glass seems to corroborate this.
It is in Line 7 that the term, "weather balloons," appears but I see nothing in this report that talks about that line. While David says there is 100% agreement, I remain a little more cautious and say that it is nearly universal though from those who have spent time studying the memo, there seems to be agreement.
The point being is that some of the memo can be read with a large majority agreeing with the words seen. That doesn't mean that everything will be cleaned up so that we have a consensus (and I never expect for their to be complete agreement because there are those who simply will not see... and they are on both sides of the fence).
Anyway, I thought I would clarify this based on a review this morning of more of the material that I have.
Kevin wrote,
Terry, I will revise my statement to: reading of "weather balloons" and "Fort Worth, Texas" are nearly universal.
No need to apologize to Terry The Troll. I can't think of a single instance of anybody thinking "weather balloons" and "Fort Worth, Tex." are NOT there. But "nearly universal" is still good enough for me.
I will note that there are some other words in the text that seem to be obvious to me but there is no real consensus for them.
There are actually quite a few strong, even unanimous consensus words/phrases in the message, such as "IN/ON THE "DISC" ", and the longer "VICIMS" phrase: THE ??????? OF THE WRECK YOU FORWARDED TO THE (Ramey's thumb and partial word sticking out to right of thumb, a few of us read as TEAM) AT FORT WORTH, TEX. Of the 13 complete words there, there is universal agreement on 9 of them (THE, OF THE, TO THE, AT FORT WORTH, TEX.) and near-unanimity on 3 others (WRECK YOU FORWARDED) Even the VICTIMS word has a strong consensus that it is VICTIMS among the 9 sampled readers on my website.
I know of other examples such as one of our photo experts "Simon" who weighed in with VICTIMS after a lot of time spent on trying to bring out lettering on our recent scans. This guy holds a forensic job calling for conservative and skeptical evaluation of photo evidence, not prone to sticking his neck out unless he thinks the evidence points strongly in that direction. "Nitram" previously worked with another photoanalysis expert, who told nothing, also quite independently determined the word was likely VICTIMS.
Altogether, when I've run the statistics on 9 readers who have contributed to significant reading of most of the message (readings compared on my website), there is strong (at least 2/3rds of readers) to unanimous consensus on what about 40% of it says, and majority to unanimous consensus on about 50%. Continued claims that literally nothing can be read or reliably read (starting with AF debunkers in 1994 and continuing on with pseudoskeptics on your blog) are just ignorance or debunking propaganda not grounded in reality.
For those wondering if there is a classification marking on the memo, at the very top it looks as if the document has been rubber stamped but I can't see what it says.
Very likely ends in double L ("LL") so I don' think it is a classification marking (Top Secret, Secret, Restricted, Confidential don't work) but a big stamp saying ROSWELL. (To those thinking maybe CARSWELL, it can't be that because Fort Worth AAF wasn't renamed Carswell for several more months when the Air Force separated from the Army.)
As noted, classification markings could easily be hidden by Ramey's thumb, shadow, paper curvature, and severe page tilt, perhaps making it impossible to prove such markings are there or not there. However, there is some sort of faint stamp at bottom left (partially hidden by Ramey's thumb and in severe paper curvature and shadow) which I believe is TO)P SECRET. Ramey was certainly making public statements that the matter was classified from above, the memo is definitely about Roswell and signed by Ramey (yes, there is close to universal agreement on that point as well), so there would be expectation of at least one security stamp somewhere, probably two, regardless of full contents of message.
This isn't Ramey's laundry list or some mundane public press release (doesn't remotely match anything put out by the military in official statements or anything credited to Ramey at the time). Brad Sparks also STRONGLY makes this point in his acid critique of Barry Greenwood's claim that this is a civilian AP teletype bulletin brought in by photographer Johnson and handed to Ramey. This is a MILITARY message about Roswell, whatever the full contents of the message are. There shouldn't be any serious dispute about this anymore.
Hello Kevin,
Are you now deleting comments critical of Rudiak in this thread (the same thread in which Rudiak refers to people as trolls, inane, etc.) Just wanted to be sure of the ground rules?
Lance
Hello Lance
Maybe if we treat the man who has studied the memo for decades a we bit better, it won't be necessary for him to comment the way he does? (Mr Rudiak or Dr Rudiak and David to his friends)
I note also, your a bit quiet about your mate who writes some ridiculous posts like claiming the memo was possibly a sci-fi novel written by Ramey (you have never commented on this (on the blog that is), but always come to the defense of the skeptic in question)? Wonder what he thinks about "Weather Balloon"?
I think David is right, anyone who has looked at an enlargement of the memo should concur very quickly with "Weather Balloons"
So... if those two words aren't correct then you can bet your house David probably hasn't got a single word right in his decades old analysis!
If true, then David must be as stupid as the drooling idiots that don't know what a weather balloon really looks like and two argumentative clowns who regularly post on this site have to be a couple of the smartest folks on the planet.
No wonder the ET's have never bothered to visit us...
Have a good day Lance.
Regards
Nitram
Come Lance,
Terry was clearly being a troll. He said that other people's reasoning was "comical". This was clearly insulting, and deserves to be labeled as what it is, a useless troll.
@ Lance
KR has always told me that this is his blog (which it is) and therefore he makes up the rules - and can break them - as well as let his fellow ETers liberty to insult skeptics all they want (or apparantly since your claim is legit).
Double standards. Read fast he'll delete this too. He always does. But at least I know he read it first!
Lance -
Nope.
Kevin,
Okay thanks...one of my posts disappeared.
Lance
Brian Bell: a few comments/questions about your "skeptic" position. If you are so absolutely sure aliens aren't visiting the earth, why is it such an issue with you? I don't understand someones energies directed toward something that is so obviously bogus that it makes someone who does believe in it a "knuckle-dragger". Is it that you, like some other more well known skeptics (Sagan, Shermer, etc.) believe there self-appointed job is to enlighten the rest of us because we're all to stupid to figure it out ourselves? Or is it maybe a phobia against the idea that ET might exist and visiting the Earth and that violates your "world view"?
I cleaned up, and then "pinched" my copy from the middle(which I grabbed from Kevin's blog), and OMG, I think its very close. Some words are just like being at the "tip of your tounge-like.
I can't believe how much clearer it is. Last line I think RAWIN is likely there. In fact, I now see:...A8t/h LOAD IN A RAWIN CRATE"
Just my take, no more.
/Bob
@ David Rudiak
This may come under the heading of woulda, coulda shoulda but did Johnson ever give technical details on the camera, lens, film, development of the film, etc.?
Has any attempt ever been made to replicate the photos using a similar camera, film, lighting, subject? If the scan has the notch code in it then the film could be identified. It's very likely to be no longer available but something similar may be in a freezer somewhere.If there was such a replication how did it turn out? Was it easier to read?
@ Lorrie
Skeptics come in a full range of beliefs just like those who support the ETH. For example, within the ET crowd you can find:
1) People who only believe in microscopic life on other planets.
2) People who believe in multiple races of aliens (Nordics, Greys, Reptilians, etc).
3) People who believe in intelligent life beyond our solar system but that it won't ever reach us.
4) People who believe in ET and extradimensional beings and time travelers.
5) People who believe aliens abduct them.
6) People who believe aliens are their creators and masters.
7) People who believe aliens run our world governments cloaked in human flesh or using bodies as "containers".
There's a myriad of believers in the ETH camp. I have no clue as to which one(s) represent your view point. Maybe all.
My skepticism is mainly about the cases that people claim are "proof" of alien visitation yet they have no scientific evidence to really prove it. They want us to believe it just because they say we should, and that THEY know better than everyone else. They have no space craft, debris, technology, or dead aliens. Nothing. And here, in lieu of physical evidence, we are examining an old photo of a teletype to "prove" aliens exist. That's ridiculous.
There may be ET life out there, but no cases presented to date "prove" this to anyone but those who want to tell tall tales, believe witness testimony alone, ignore forensic science, make a buck of other people, and say they have the answers "just because they know".
Perhaps your worldview would be "shattered" if it were show these beings (if they exist) were actually say demonic entities pretending to be your space aliens? Or some genetic aberration of the human psyche, or government technology of some sort?
You can't claim something is proven without scientific evidence. The real world doesn't work that way nor does science. If it did, anyone could claim anything in science without having the need to prove it - just make anything up you want and it's golden.
As long as there's no hard evidence that can be examined it's unreasonable to say that you have "proven" that aliens are here. There are more prosaic explanations for what is seen and experienced, but those are ignored by the hopes and dreams of people looking for some sort of earthly salvation from beings from outer space.
Lance complained hypocritically: (1 of 2)
Are you now deleting comments critical of Rudiak in this thread (the same thread in which Rudiak refers to people as trolls, inane, etc.) Just wanted to be sure of the ground rules?
You're a little tone deaf Lance. After telling me on the phone you would stop the insults, you started them up again, BIG time. This isn’t a matter of simply being “critical” of me, as you try to posture it. These are not reasoned questions about what I did or actual KNOWLEDGEABLE counterarguments, but pure, vindictive personal attack.
This post will detail the mass of insults that were recently thrown at me FIRST by you and Terry,. Then you as usual play the victim card. (pun not intended) What did poor Lance do to deserves such wretched treatment?
E.g. in the last thread on "victims of the wreck", we have the following Lancisms:
VICTIMS is seen only by "deluded UFO believers... not to anyone honest... Anyone saying anything beyond that [word is unclear] is a liar or deluded or just wrong... I certainly wouldn't create some fake "science" based on probability to support my claim. The truth isn't determined that way... It is unfortunate that David and other even more dubious UFO "researchers (!) have poisoned the well with their fevered false claims. It is understandable that little bottom-feeding UFO believers would be confused and simply accept the word of their saucer heroes as fact.
So anyone who thinks they have seem VICTIMS is 1) A liar, 2) a deluded UFO believers or simply deluded, 3) dishonest, 4) pushing fevered false claims, 5) dubious "researchers", 6) practicing fake "science", 7) don't know how to determine truth (unlike Lance), 8) poisoners of the well 9) only accepted by bottom-feeding UFO believers.
That's about a dozen insults (counting the maligning adjectives as well) in one short post.. Could make it one more if one counts someone must be necessarily "wrong" if they think VICTIMS is there. (no reason--just because Lance says so)
BTW Lance, your comment "fake 'science' based on probability" is an insult very obviously directed at me personally because I brought up that my impartial computer OCR reading rated VICTIMS the hands-down best proposed word by probability (and your favorite, VIEWING, the absolute worst).
It also shows that you are deeply ignorant of the scientific method (not meant as an insult but as a statement of obvious fact), because the VAST MAJORITY of scientific analyses and papers are all about probability analysis. (So are such things as computer OCR and speech recognition--it's ALL probability analysis.) Any sort of quantitative analysis will not get published unless you have it. You are not scientifically trained, I am, but that doesn't stop you from at times attacking my competency and credentials, as in the following post of yours from the same thread:
Rudiak may be doing some of his made-up "science," but that stuff still reeks as much as ever. Cranks working outside their expertise on "science" that no one else can reproduce never helps. Rudiak's response above makes it clear that he has disconnected from even the pretense of objectivity.
OK, my work is now: 1) made-up "science", 2) it reeks, 3) that of a crank operating outside of his alleged scientific expertise, 4) Can't be reproduced, not “hasn’t been” but “CAN’T be”, insinuating I totally fabricated it (also falsely suggesting others have tried and failed); 5) disconnected from even a pretense of objectivity (whereas Lance is 100% objective). At least 8 insults, some very personal, in one short paragraph.
(2 of 2)
In yet another post you label my work: 1) "Self-created "science", 2) "includes as many silly saucer buff/conspiracy theory words as possible", 3) "working-backwards-to-achieve-a-desired-result pseudoscience that is the stock in trade of UFO "researchers" " (scare quotes again, naturally, meaning not real researchers, unlike Lance, who has done NO work on the memo), and 4)"wholly unconvincing unless you happen to be a rabid believer". That's a lot of typical trite Lance ad hominems crammed into a short space. I count at least 9 or 10.
And elsewhere you repeatedly accuse my results of being based purely on bias (again, with you remarkably free of this human sin), even my purely technical flattening of the memo in preparation for an OCR read and the read itself you accuse of being somehow “biased” (because Lance says so), and produces only "gibberish" (because Lance says so).
Terry, another know-nothing like yourself who has done NO work of any kind on the memo but like you now becomes another self-anointed expert, then started in with the insults (like you, having nothing actually knowledgeable or thoughtful to say):
The following is in the post where he claimed I was wrong about WEATHER BALLOONS being a univerally accepted read:
"Unanimous as defined by Rudiak": An insinuation that I'm just making it up. No, "unanimous" as defined in the dictionary, meaning EVERYBODY giving an educated, personal assessment agrees, a simple statement of fact in this case.
"SERIOUS people; that is, those who agree with Rudiak." No, serious, as in requiring thought, concentration, or application, not being a Lance or Terry or a BB, getting off your ass and doing some actual work instead of pretending snark and malicious insult makes you "critical thinkers" and “researchers”. And BTW, the other readers don’t all agree with me on everything, but I give them credit for putting in some real thought and effort, therefore I call them SERIOUS readers.
"This manner of reasoning is COMICAL." If by “manner of reasoning” he means being able to count and seeing that 9 out of 9 comparison memo readers agreeing and three different groups of people in the Randle/Houran study all seeing WEATHER BALLOONS does indeed make 100% agreement. That’s the way most of the world does math. What next: stating that half the population is male and half female becomes “comical reasoning”?
Terry then followed up with a lie or a self-delusion claiming that one of my links supposedly had Barry Greenwood claiming "weather balloons" was not in the message, therefore the great critical thinker Terry had disproven my claim of universality. Such a link and statement by Greenwood do NOT exist, not in this universe anyway. Terry made it up. THAT is when I called him "inane" and a "troll", pretty mild given what he did.
You guys love your insults and spouting total BS, like apes hurling feces, then whine when you get some blowback. I think you alone have me outnumbered in the insults department by at least 10 to 1.
And BTW, Kevin has deleted some of my posts, for reasons I don't totally understand, since I feel I was just defending myself from the continual massive and irrational abuse I receive from the other side. Maybe he thought the posts would just inflame the situation even more, or maybe he thought it was just dragging the discussion even further off into the weeds.
I don’t know where you thought this sort of behavior was any way to carry out a reasoned discussion. If you have questions about my methodology and results, just ask the questions and I’ll do my best to answer. Don’t immediately accuse me of incompetence, “bias”, and “fake science”. It’s quite obvious from your various comments you usually don’t have a clue about what you “criticize” with such venom, so maybe a little humility, civility, and actual thoughtfulness is in order?
@ Brian Bell...
I'm guessing Lorrie understands all that.
But I think he's asking you the same question I asked you a few weeks back.
ie... Why, if you think this flying saucer stuff is such utter bollocks, do you waste, seemingly, all of your recent life typing incessantly on practically every single thread here...several times every single day, in order to shout everyone down.)
We have sceptics here, for sure...and that makes for decent, honest and entertaining debate.
But you're not a sceptic. You're a complete debunker who out-contributes every other sceptic and ETH'er (including the man who's blog this is) put together!
Why such interest in something you consider drivel?
Haven't you got a job...or a dog that needs walking???
(If you're wheelchair bound and your only contact with the world is by using a keypad through eye movement...then I profusely apologise.)
Neil Foy wrote:
This may come under the heading of woulda, coulda shoulda but did Johnson ever give technical details on the camera, lens, film, development of the film, etc.?
Standard press Speedgraphic camera, probably usual 120 mm lens (don't know for sure--other Speedgraphic lenses are possible), 4"x5" film with acetate base, "Ansco Safety Film" (labeled on negatives). Don't know the film speed. Johnson said development was a rush job because of the press demand for photos, the negatives were not completely dried, and the prints were placed wet on the wirephoto machine brought in by AP from Dallas. Our of our film experts Jerry, just by examining the negatives by eye, noticed that they probably hadn't been completely dried and lamented that there probably would have been a little more detail and contrast in the Ramey message had the negative been thoroughly dried. (This is what he said as best I remember, but I may not have his comments exactly right.)
Has any attempt ever been made to replicate the photos using a similar camera, film, lighting, subject?
Not to my knowledge. Lighting would be difficult to determine. The curtains were drawn, but room lights were on, and a flash used. I don't know if they even make flashbulbs for cameras anymore, so that might have to be simulated with some sort of strobe instead, again changing the lighting conditions.
It would help to know room dimensions, but we don't know that either. I've twice tried to get on the base hoping to find Ramey's office, if it still exists, take photos, and do some measurements, including on our recent 2015 trip and back in 2005, but have always been thwarted. Prior to 9/11 I have had no problems getting onto the few military bases I have wanted to visit. But security seems to have gotten much tighter.
I also called around to various archives hoping to find some old maps of the base, at least maybe locating where Ramey's office was, but nobody seemed to have any idea where such a map might be.
If the scan has the notch code in it then the film could be identified.
Again, "Ansco Safety Film", acetate base. One of our film experts Jerry examined the notch codes and tried to compare them with historical notch codes he had, but wasn't able to find an exact match. I'm not an expert here, but the notch code I believe would have given us the film speed, so that currently isn't known.
It's very likely to be no longer available but something similar may be in a freezer somewhere.If there was such a replication how did it turn out? Was it easier to read?
I know I and Neil Morris and maybe some others have tried this with digital cameras, which of course is not the same. At the time, I was mainly trying to figure out how the paper had been folded and curled. I have done some 3D computer construction of the scene, so I got a good idea of how high the camera was and how far away from the message, but other than that we don't know the exact lighting conditions and would have to make some guesses.
Again, I'm no photography or film expert. You would need some real expert who might have access to an old Speedgraphic camera and maybe some refrigerated film, the latter probably being very difficult to find, if not severely deteriorated by now.
BB wrote:
"My skepticism is mainly about the cases that people claim are "proof" of alien visitation yet they have no scientific evidence to really prove it. They want us to believe it just because they say we should, and that THEY know better than everyone else." They have no space craft, debris, technology, or dead aliens. Nothing. And here, in lieu of physical evidence, we are examining an old photo of a teletype to "prove" aliens exist. That's ridiculous."
No one in this company claims 'proof' of alien visitation, so who are you ranting at? Theories in the physical sciences are developed first through comprehensive reasoning about parts or aspects of what is known to exist in nature and these guide the search for the 'hard' evidence you claim to be the only mark of validity in our species thinking.
"As long as there's no hard evidence that can be examined it's unreasonable to say that you have "proven" that aliens are here. There are more prosaic explanations for what is seen and experienced, but those are ignored by the hopes and dreams of people looking for some sort of earthly salvation from beings from outer space."
That is another of your standard short-sighted and punitive rants. It is not news to scientists that prosaic explanations for phenomena are often mistaken, which is why scientists remain open to possibilities and probabilities in their theory constructions.
Again, no one here claims to have unambiguous proof at this point that the Roswell events involved an ET species, so you're shadow-boxing with a straw man of your own construction, and using the opportunity KR provides to vent your evident rage at a world that does not supply the certainties you desire on those researchers who most effectively challenge your assumptions. By the responses you get here, I should think you'd see that your approach is not working.
Rudiak, as usual misrepresents. Here this rises to a new level of dishonesty.
He says that I say:
"VICTIMS is seen only by "deluded UFO believers... not to anyone honest... Anyone saying anything beyond that [word is unclear"
Rudiak, of course, knows that I don't say this. I admit that VICTIMS is a possibility. He knows this. I just say that if you go beyond this, bringing in a silly certainty that the other stuff is true. Again Rudiak already knows this. He concocted a mishmash of quotes from me to promote something he knows is untrue.
That is the way he works. With religious blindness. And righteous certainly. The same kind of certainty he used on the Roswell slides to state that the text on THAT document was handwritten. Nice job there,David! Please regale us with more of your expert "document analysis."!
Lance
@ Jeanne
"No one in this company claims 'proof' of alien visitation, so who are you ranting at? Theories in the physical sciences are developed first through comprehensive reasoning about parts or aspects of what is known to exist in nature and these guide the search for the 'hard' evidence you claim to be the only mark of validity in our species thinking."
>> Are you recanting all of your previous posts declaring ET is real then? Because so far your posts have stated with certainty he is (without any hard evidence).
"Again, no one here claims to have unambiguous proof at this point that the Roswell events involved an ET species...."
>> Really? Who are you trying to fool? It's been stated quite certainly by several people here. Are you now saying there are other possibilities beyond ET? If so confess them outright.
@ Paul
Actually David Rudiak posts more than me in word volume with his one, two, and three part contributions.
If you stop asking me these unrelated questions maybe I wouldn't feel the need to post a response.
Odd that you have so much personal interest in me that you constantly bring this stuff up. Maybe if you spent half the time you waste on asking this nonsense you'd contribute more to your own theory and less on theories about me.
Hello Lance
You missed my earlier post, so I will repeat it for you below:
Maybe if we treat the man who has studied the memo for decades a we bit better, it won't be necessary for him to comment the way he does? (Mr Rudiak or Dr Rudiak and David to his friends)
I note also, your a bit quiet about your mate who writes some ridiculous posts like claiming the memo was possibly a sci-fi novel written by Ramey (you have never commented on this (on the blog that is), but always come to the defense of the skeptic in question)? Wonder what he thinks about "Weather Balloon"?
I think David is right, anyone who has looked at an enlargement of the memo should concur very quickly with "Weather Balloons"
So... if those two words aren't correct then you can bet your house David probably hasn't got a single word right in his decades old analysis!
If true, then David must be as stupid as the drooling idiots that don't know what a weather balloon really looks like and two argumentative clowns who regularly post on this site have to be a couple of the smartest folks on the planet.
No wonder the ET's have never bothered to visit us...
Have a good day Lance.
David Rudiak wrote:
"The only two viable proposed words here would be REMAINS and VICTIMS for the disputed word. VICTIMS by OCR tests much better than REMAINS and VICTIMS is also the strong consensus word of the serious readers and in a reader poll I did on my website."
Hello David: Have you, or anyone, tried to compare the results of the OCR process for the older scans versus the results of the newer scans? For instance, if the word VICTIMS had fairly good numerical scores with the older scans, one might expect that the newer scans, with more resolution, might have somewhat better numerical scores. I think that even if the improvements are marginal or extremely small, that would still might be significative, because they would show a differential trend. Other candidate words, might show increasing or decreasing in OCR scores, and that would be also significative. This is a suggestion that might be childish, but I think that any idea might help.
Regards,
Brian Bell: I fall into the "camp" that our Earth is not the only abode of life in the universe and ETL probably exists at many levels from the microscopic to highly advanced. Is that similar to your basic beliefs about life elsewhere in the universe?
I have no moral, scientific, religious or philosophical objections to the possible existence of ET life. What I am trying to get at is this: do you have an a priori objection to alien life? If so, then of course no UFO's could be ET related simply because ET doesn't exist. Is that the position you start from? Thanks for your prior reply....:)....
Brian Bell said..."If you stop asking me these unrelated questions maybe I wouldn't feel the need to post a response."
Your response never answers the question though, does it!
I'll ask again. Why do you spend so VERY much of your time on a blog that is dedicated to a subject that you have nothing but contempt for?
How utterly empty is your life that you feel the need to, not just be a sceptic, but to actively attempt to "debunk" the subject. (and very badly, may I add.)
Oh well...I suppose that while you're mithering us, it means you're not mithering The Samaritans.
@ Paul
"How utterly empty is your life that you feel the need to believe in space aliens to make yourself feel good about something. Not just to believe in it, but to actively attempt to "convince" the rest of us. (And without any evidence, very badly, may I add.)"
@ Lorrie
"Is that similar to your basic beliefs about life elsewhere in the universe?"
Yes.
I have no objection to either as it could be possible. For me, as stated, there needs to be more than "personal experiences". There is a phenomenon, but no one really has a corner on the answer, not yet or if even it's possible.
Some have estimated about 20% of all sightings remain inexplicable. Whatever that percent really is, even if 10%, I don't think anyone has figured it out, and that percentage may in fact be multiple things coalescing at once, meaning not just one explanation but several yet unexplained. Thanks.
@ JR:
"...you're shadow-boxing with a straw man of your own construction."
Ha! I appreciate the sharp humor and imagery that expression provoked in my mind as I read it. Sort of reminded me of the lyrics to Billy Idol's old rock tune, "Dancing with Myself." 8^}
@ All:
Yes, it is true that many here end up talking past each other, and both misinterpret, misquote, mischaracterize and fail to acknowledge the points made by either side, in part due to both the ideological mindsets of the "opposing sides" and the emotional, ad hominem charges being thrown back and forth with such angry and personal vituperation.
I think we all have to pause, step back, and ask ourselves, what the hell are we really doing here?
Why do disagreements about UFO facts, theories, issues, etcetera have to descend so often and so quickly into vicious comments about each other? They don't.
I think "the war" needs to end. Can we try to debate and argue the points without making it so damn personal, or to the message and content, rather than to the person?
What is that Rodney King said? "Can't we all just get along?"
Maybe not. But something needs to change.
We should all at least try harder to pull back and address the issues under debate and conflict, not attack each other. I have been guilty of that myself at times in the past when provoked by slanderous commenters, both here and on a few other blogs, but in the end it never works, and only results in a rigid hardening of positions and accelerates interpersonal conflict.
That awful syndrome made me so sick of it, that I withdrew from commenting for several months after the Roswell slides fiasco, and the craziness that engendered both before and after. But I can't stay silent any longer. I want to contribute, but not in this kind of environment.
[This isn't Congress, with it's apparently unresolvable gridlock, is it?] ;-)
We need to step back and "agree to disagree" at times, because the vicious sniping keeps derailing the conversation, whether you characterize it as a debate, argument, or investigation.
Can we compromise to at least some degree in an attempt to reduce the damaging and mutually self-defeating effects? Otherwise, this all comes across as just some bizarre form of juvenile mental masturbation. Both childish and irrational.
It becomes an almost religious battle, like (metaphorically) Wahhabist jihadi islamic believers vs. equally crazed fundamentalist Christian evangelical absolutists. Both sides are wrong.
Maybe the problem is "red brain / blue brain" territory, in that on an elemental level, we are arguing about reality itself, or how we perceive it, in that some here think there are no UFOs whatsoever, only "reports" and psychosocial delusion, while others are absolutely convinced humanoid extraterrestrials are visiting us, or reside here, and all I can say to those two extremes on the spectrum of belief is that neither position is proven, so we need to be more cautious, circumspect and tentative about rigid conclusions based on ambiguous and circumstantial indicators either way.
And, maybe a little kinder and more rational toward each other.
I don't know what else to say.
In conclusion, I'll refer you to the famous billboards John Lennon and Yoko Ono put up in New York City during the height of the Vietnam war protests:
"WAR IS OVER! (If you want it)"
The question then is, do we want it? Or not?
Peace out...! (sermonistic rant is over -- for now)
Thanks for your comments Brian. As I'm sure most are aware, Carl Sagan was an ardent believer in ET, but categorically rejected that UFO's were alien spacecraft. Some however have rejected the link because they rule out the initial possibility of alien life; see Hugh Ross for example. Obviously, if alien life is impossible, then UFO's cannot be alien craft. I'm always interested in what "informs" one's skepticism on any topic, and whether those inferences are warranted. Again, thanks for the reply Brian...
Yes, I would agree with Lorrie: the comment just above you made in reply to her is actually one of the most reasonable I've seen you make. We'll make you a "UFO agnostic" yet! Heh... 8^}
I've been awakened from the sleep that both DR and Nitram advised me to go back into. (And please don't anyone tell me that I can't end a sentence with a preposition).
Jeanne:
You say no one here has claimed we have proof of ET visitation. Look at David Rudiak's website again. The very name of it, "Roswellproof.com", strongly indicates that DR considers we DO HAVE such proof. And I am positive he has not softened his views in any way since setting up that name. Kevin has written, himself or jointly, numerous books heavily biased towards 'Roswell is ET', so again you are wrong. I am equally positive that Kevin has not substantially changed his views either, although he does appear to be not quite as emphatic as he was in his early writings.
The only reason this wretched Ramey scrap of paper (that's all it is) is being revived now is that it is, literally, the only 'hard' evidence remaining. The Roswell slides have sunk without trace as has the Santilli film, so without any hardware, bodies, or real documentation to pursue, what else is there? Someone seizes on old photographs which show a piece of paper that they hope reveals the great truth. The text is illegible as it stands, but EThers hope beyond hope that it might be decipherable by super-duper technology. Then they can announce the great truth to the world. If only!
The only words/phrases having a reasonable chance of being correct are "WEATHER BALLOONS" and "Ft. WORTH, TEX". Neither goes the slightest way towards proving, or even suggesting, an ET crash so the super-analysis continues, in the vain hope that the great cover-up will be finally exposed.
Meanwhile mainstream science ignores it all and gets on with other things.
I don't know if DR's pulse rate is rising in hope of things to come, but I do know mine is not, at least not for this reason.
Nitram:
Is it conceivable that the guy who suggested that the text on that scrap of paper in Ramey's hand was part of a science fiction novel might have had his tongue in his cheek?
Steve:
Kevin did ask some time ago that we all kept our insults down and be more polite. This worked for a short period, but now seems to have been forgotten. It is up to him, as blog administrator, to reintroduce and re-emphasise this matter. (And thereafter hope commenters will adhere to it).
But it's no use being thin-skinned when debating or discussing UFOs. It is a harsh world out there.
cda wrote
"I've been awakened from the sleep that both DR and Nitram advised me to go back into."
There is an adage in my country that says: "Those which go away without been expelled, come back without being called".
CDA -
We have been working on this for quite a while, attempting to put all the pieces together. It took months and months and the reason that we have produced some of the scans publicly and all of them privately, was because we want to know what the memo says. It might be, just as you say, the only the only hard evidence remaining... which I will qualify to add, in the public arena. There may be hidden documents but since we have no evidence of that, it is a very fine thread on which to hang a hope.
If we can read it, no matter the outcome, we will have an answer to one of the riddles. It might please those on the skeptic side or maybe those at the far end of the spectrum.
But this attempt to decipher the memo was born of expert opinion that the latest technology and software might be enough for us to clean up the text. Our plan was always to present all that we found into a public forum... with some more positive results than we have achieved. We had hoped that we would have a better handle on this when we came out but that just isn't the case.
All -
I will note again that we should remain cordial in our discussions. I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept. It does not facilitate discussion to insult one another. I think everyone has had a chance to respond to the insults so that no more will be tolerated...
@ Lorrie
Thanks for the comments. I do know of Hugh Ross's work most notably in creation theory. I wouldn't go so far as to rule out the possibility of ET life, as one cannot know the mind of God. In this case the phenomenon we call "UFOs" seem to defy normal explanation. I'm fine with the ETH being ONE of the many possible explanations, but I don't think it's the ONLY possible explanation. So far we can speculate life out there may exist, and as some have claimed before me life by way of spontaneous self creation and then evolution remains totally unproven.
One analogy provided by others has been this:
"The probability of intelligent life evolving on another planet is akin to the chance that a tornado blowing through a junk yard might assemble a completely functional 747 aircraft."
I tend to think the analogy is applicable given what we currently know.
Brian Bell said :
"My skepticism is mainly about the cases that people claim are "proof" of alien visitation yet they have no scientific evidence to really prove it. They want us to believe it just because they say we should, and that THEY know better than everyone else. They have no space craft, debris, technology, or dead aliens. Nothing. And here, in lieu of physical evidence, we are examining an old photo of a teletype to "prove" aliens exist. That's ridiculous."
Actually, I don't think there are many who are claiming any "proof" otherwise we wouldn't still be discussing about some cases and the ETH. On the otherhand, IMHO there are enough substantial clues that indicate in some cases ETH comes as a possible explanation which is NOT saying that is proof, which I think you're confusing in your mind. Still, what I can't figure out since you're demanding evidence before being affirmative (on which I agree but this works in any ways) is why you wouldn't be supportive of a further analysis of the Ramey memo since it may (or not) clear up some things, whatever they may be, if done in an openly way so that everyone would be able to evaluate and criticize any results brougth forward by anyone, the point being that criticizing intellligently is different than mere poor attacking without any valuable argumentation (again in both ways).
"As long as there's no hard evidence that can be examined it's unreasonable to say that you have "proven" that aliens are here."
I totally agree, but...
"There are more prosaic explanations for what is seen and experienced, but those are ignored by the hopes and dreams of people looking for some sort of earthly salvation from beings from outer space."
I think you unfortunately wrongly project your own beliefs into other people's mind. You don't need to fantasize about what would ET life could be like (I reckon some skeptics arguments may make sense but on the same way it hasn't been proven), still you can just reasonnably figure out prosaic explanations can't explain some cases and due to their characteristics consider the ETH as a possible explanation.
"Actually, I don't think there are many who are claiming any "proof" otherwise we wouldn't still be discussing about some cases and the ETH. "
Brice, you should look into this more. The main proponent for the memo does claim that he has proven his case. He shows zero uncertainty. Take a look at David Rudiak's site, preposterously called roswellproof.com (getting the picture?). There you will find statements like this:
"Telegram held in General Ramey's hand provides smoking gun proof of a "disk" crash and the recovery of "the victims of the wreck"
That is what we are dealing with. Religious zealots who take a supposition and insist that it is proven fact. That is exactly the kind of thing that skeptics have to fight against because, believe it or not, that kind of dogmatism makes the world a worse place.
Lance
"That is exactly the kind of thing that skeptics have to fight against because, believe it or not, that kind of dogmatism makes the world a worse place."
So skeptics such as Lance are the saviors of humanity? Now we don't have any hope.
Good one, Don!
@ Brice
"...why you wouldn't be supportive of a further analysis of the Ramey memo since it may (or not) clear up some things, whatever they may be.."
If you go back and scan my posts I've said I have no problems with people of any persuasion analyzing it further.
No one can be certain what it says at the moment. So when others say it's "Roswell Proof" meaning proof the government is hiding aliens from us I can't agree with that.
Mostly the memo seems to be gibberish as it's currently deciphered.
It does seem to have "disc" and "Fort Worth, Texas" written in it, and it does seem to have "Ramey" at the bottom. But from that we can only deduce what's there isn't any different than what the newspapers were printing.
@ Brice
I forgot to add this...
Why is it that people are so feverish about the need to prove that ET life is visiting earth? Obviously they are seeking some sort of answer and those who believe flying saucers are evidence of it are already convinced.
So if convinced why the need to prove anything? What's the big deal about "them" being here?
Of the memo wete clear and it said quite plainly "we have recovered a space ship with bodies of people from another planet" what would it really change about anything?
Just asking...and I'm serious.
Brian: most people tend to believe the question "are we alone in the universe?" is one of the great unanswered mysteries of human existence. There seem to be several ways of answering it; the discovery of radio transmissions from outer space, sending a probe or manned mission to a nearby star or perhaps the discovery of ruins or alien space debris. All of those possibilities would require not only a great amount of luck, but also a lot of money, technology and political will. However, to those interested in the question itself, there is another alternative; that aliens have or are visiting the Earth, which would require very little money or a decades long interstellar mission to verify. Of course, if the idea of alien life or alien visitors falls into your idea of the mundane, then you would be correct to say "who cares"? But I would argue that Sagan, Hoyle, Von Braun, Clark, Drake and others were on to something by believing that actual proof of ET's existence might be a watershed event in the history of the human race.....
@Lance :
I can see your point but as for myself I don't take too much consideration of some specific words which may be more of an emphasis of someone's opinion, as long as one is exposing in detail his arguments and all the evidence that lead to his conclusions, so one can just make up his own mind as well.
Brian Bell said :
"If you go back and scan my posts I've said I have no problems with people of any persuasion analyzing it further."
ok I haven't read all the comments...
"Why is it that people are so feverish about the need to prove that ET life is visiting earth? Obviously they are seeking some sort of answer and those who believe flying saucers are evidence of it are already convinced.
So if convinced why the need to prove anything? What's the big deal about "them" being here?"
I wouldn't say exactly that people have necessarily the need to prove ETs are visiting earth but most are just very interested to understand what the UFO phenomenon is, having come to the conclusion that prosaic explanations can't explain some cases and that the ETH is a possible explanation, and maybe the most adequate or "economic" in our current view given the characteristics of some strange cases. What makes this subject very peculiar IMO is that if an ET origin of some ufo are proven then it would certainly shaken our current paradigm, mostly for the very religious people. Alhough knowledge has progressed a lot from a few centuries ago, I think we still live in an anthropocentric paradigm. You just need to look how monotheistic religions (where man is the center of the universe) are still widespread or creationism still thought to be valuable. So in essence it would be a big change (especially for some groups) in our conception of the world and "our place" in the universe.
"Of the memo wete clear and it said quite plainly "we have recovered a space ship with bodies of people from another planet" what would it really change about anything?"
Not sure what you meant (I lack some english langage), but IMO the deciphering of the Ramey Memo might change a lot in a or another direction, or not change anything, but who knows until a real good portion of it could be clearly deciphered (supposing this could possible?)
@ David Rudiak
Thank you for answering my questions. I think that the way the film was processed and abused afterward explains in part why we have so much trouble reading the document. The speedy processing led to what's called blocking up the detail in the negative. Basically the d-max and d-min blend together. Such is the case when speed is more important than fine detail. What we have in the scans is possibly all we will ever get.
Someone suggested using artificial intelligence computing to try to make some sense of the writing. I like that idea because it might be faster and could eliminate some of the prejudice that seems to be a point of contention. That's just an opinion.
@ Lorrie
The question of ET life is not a new one. We know the debate over the "plurality of world's" began as early as the time of Anaximander (~ 546 BC) as an abstract argument that other worlds may exist with people such as ourselves living in or on them.
That question was largely a philosophical-religious one predating the scientific Copernican conception that our planet is one of numerous planets around us.
I believe Drake, Sagan, and others that you mentioned would today be considered proponents of "cosmic pluralism" as it was once known, as would any person who embraces the concept of intelligent ET life elsewhere in the universe.
Some skeptics, but not all, would probably consider themselves "rare earth" proponents.
But there's a difference between just believing ET life may exist and claiming it's visiting us now or has been for thousands of years. The difference isn't subtle.
My question for Brice was focused on the "quest" for confirmation from lay followers (UFO ET proponents) who seek to prove something they claim is already obviously true based on witness testimony and photographs alone.
Is it because they think the rest of the world should believe them, but currently won't? And if so, isn't that akin to a pseudo evangelistic cause?
So why the quest if people already believe it for themselves?
- Just for deep personal confirmation?
- Vindication of some kind?
Or something greater perhaps:
- A desire for world change?
- A reason to explain why people exist?
- Just because it's cool?
- Hope for humanity through assistance from aliens?
In "A.D." Dolan claims:
- Congress will hold Watergate-style hearings and ask secret-keepers, "What did you know and when did you know it?"
- The first decade A.D. (After Disclosure) will be like a high-tech 1960s, spawning massive cultural and societal change.
- Abductees will file a class-action suit against the government for withholding critical information.
- All the textbooks on planet Earth--from history to science--will need an immediate review.
So why the quest and yearn for an answer that many people here claim they already know is real?
It has to be more than just finding means to save $ and time on expensive research such as SETI.
Brian: every great discovery starts with a vision, and the idea the vision is actually true, or why pursue it? At the time of Carl Sagan's death there was not a single shard of evidence of extraterrestrial life. So why was he so outspoken about it? Was he a crank? Not at all. Rather, I would suggest that while he knew ET life was a reality, he also realized the final proof was still lacking. The average UFO buff is in the same boat. There's nothing nefarious or odd about it; it's human nature. And in the end of course, we all want vindication.
Another thing to think about in regard to the average UFO buff: sending a probe to Mars or having your very own SETI program is beyond the reach of most of us. But to those interested in a possible connection between UFOs and ET life, solving the mystery is in the reach of most of us who are interested in the ultimate answer. It doesn't take a great deal of money to investigate the typical UFO sighting or even a large amount of brains (I'm living proof!). Splitting the atom was open to a rare few, but UFOs are open to all. And, let's all admit it, it's great fun!!!
@ Lorrie
"...And, let's all admit it, it's great fun!!!"
Agreed. I fear some take it a bit too serious, i.e. the dogged "quest".
@Lorrie (1/2) : speaking of ET life and Carl Sagan, it's a kind of a "double standard" for skeptics who say they believe ET life exists in the universe but refuse to consider the ETH as a possible explanation for some ufos (these are debunkers and not skeptics). In both cases there aren't any definitive proofs yet but at least some "clues" which IMO should let us keep an open mind on these possibilities. So why one would believe/accept an idea and willingly reject another when both aren't proven? I think (some) skeptics associate too much of a notion of faith to the subject of ufos hence their reaction of rejection, when it should just be considered dispassionnately, just as another hypothesis, even if it doesn't fit our still very anthropocentric society paradigm. But in anycase, isn't it the essence and fate of science to be "revolutionnary", so why fear a "revolutionnary" hypothesis?
@Lorrie (2/2): I would just disagree on some degree on the easiness to study ufos if wanted to have it done in a productive and "serious" manner. Decades of even serious and dedicated investigations of cases have shown their limits and I should say its hopelessness. IMO it falls down to one main point, which is that not enough robust and hard data have been acquired to raise the attention of authorities and the scientific community to overcome the bulk of very dubious stuff that on the contrary have grown bigger and bigger through the years, making the field more and more fearsome to scientists for their careers, so that very few would openly admit their interest in the subject, and even less engage themselves in an active research. Even then, what's the point if you don't have enough material, people and competence to carry one a serious scientific study? Which is why things have stagnated for decades or maybe got even worse from the 50/60's when the subject didn't seem to have such a neferious aura than it has now. My belief is the only way to move forward on the subject of ufos is to engage in a serious scientific study on personnal initiatives or maybe through some public agencies for the ones that may be more open and willingful to undertake such a study (for example IMO the french GEIPAN seem to be somehow open to the subject but just way too passive, of course without a budget you don't go anywhere). I was recently listening to a ufo podcast with Leslie Kean and Mark Rodeghier speaking of the project of ufodata which is the kind of project that may yields some interesting results, the problem being because of the very elusive nature of ufos, one cannot predict if and when interesting data would be obtained, which is another reason why scientists aren't willing study the subject...sorry to have gone so far off the rails...
BB wrote
"The probability of intelligent life evolving on another planet is akin to the chance that a tornado blowing through a junk yard might assemble a completely functional 747 aircraft.""
Ok - that is quite funny BB, but surely the odds aren't quite that extreme. - can we have the source of this quote please - you are often asked to provide "details" for your posts so remember to quote your sources (or web sites)
Don wrote:
"So skeptics such as Lance are the saviors of humanity? Now we don't have any hope."
"Those which go away without been expelled, come back without being called".
Well done Don - you scored a couple of good hits.
Regards
Nitram
After reading Kevin's response, I went back to find what I thought I had read in David's rebuttal of Greenwood. It was this line:
Greenwood likewise couldn't match other agreed-upon words/phrases like "IN (or ON) THE 'DISC'," "MEANING OF STORY," "WEATHER BALLOONS," "LAND," or "CREWS."
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Fortean_Times.html
Re-reading the whole article, clearly, I took the passage out of context. Greenwood could not find those words in the press reports; I thought it referred to not finding the terms in the memo.
I was mistaken.
And so I must sincerely apologise to David and everyone else here for my (somehow) tricking David against his will into repeatedly calling me a troll and a liar. As we all know, and David often declaims, SERIOUS people are never insulting; rather, insults are always the fault of the UNSERIOUS people who are being insulted. I see that now.
Nitram:
"The probability of intelligent life evolving on another planet is akin to the chance that a tornado blowing through a junk yard might assemble a completely functional 747 aircraft.""
I don't know who originally said this. He probably was referring to the probability of ET life evolving ON ONE PARTICULAR PLANET. Considering that there are anything from 10 to the 20th power to 10 to the 25th power celestial bodies in our universe, you can see that the true probability of at least one of them having ET life is considerably (!) increased.
Without any advance knowledge, what would you say was the probability of ET life evolving on earth as it has now?
CDA wrote:
"I don't know who originally said this."
("The probability of intelligent life evolving on another planet is akin to the chance that a tornado blowing through a junk yard might assemble a completely functional 747 aircraft.")
Unfortunately BB has a habit of not quoting his "source" - this is just another example.
..I believe the "tornado in a junkyard" quote may be from Sir Fred Hoyle.....
Yes Lorrie it is. But I'd like to think that people who claim to know so much about it could do a little homework themselves rather than ask me to be their intellectual butler.
-
Hello.
First I want to apologize for my bad english.
I am 50 years old and I am coming from Germany.
With Roswell, I am well acquainted.
To decrypt this extremely interesting document, I suggest the following:
1. First you need the ABC in exactly the font in which the telex was written at that time.
2. The test persons should be selected only by non-English speaking people.
These people may not know what content they should identify.
These points prevents that such persons can draw the wrong conclusions.
3. To be able to declare at least 2-5 letters as safe,
there are surely cognate some original Army letter.
I am sure that all similar army-telexes always had the same structure.
Maybe I could hereby give food for thought.
Regards - Eric
--
Post a Comment