Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Ramey Memo and Victims of the Wreck

We have been privileged to learn the importance of the Ramey memo based not on the research currently underway but on the opinion that there is no alien visitation so that there is nothing in the memo to lead in that direction. We’re told that even if it says, “Victims of the wreck,” as many UFO researchers suggest, it doesn’t mean that what fell was alien. It seems that we should just give up because we all know there is no alien visitation and continued attempts to read the memo are a waste of time.

Can the Ramey memo clarify this situation?

Actually, yes.

There are some things we can say about it now. The source of it is limited. J. Bond Johnson, the reporter/photographer who took the picture said, at one time, that he had brought the document into the office with him and handed it to Ramey. Later, realizing that this sort of negated the value of it, repudiated that claim. He hadn’t brought it in. Instead, it was a document that he had taken off Ramey’s desk and handed it to him so that Ramey had something in his hand for the photographs. I’m not sure what the rationale for this would be, other than to suggest that it was something inside the office and that makes it more important.

If Johnson hadn’t brought it in, then what is it?

It could be the draft of a press statement that Ramey planned to give or release. If so, then it would be unclassified and would probably not reveal much of anything. The draft would have been sitting on his desk for Johnson to grab, or Ramey, knowing he was meeting with a reporter to grab so that he was holding it when Johnson entered the office.

It could be a teletype message that came through the base communications center. That would give it an “official” status, but not necessarily one of great importance. Unclassified messages did come through the center and they were routine matters. Nothing that would be Earth shattering. It could easily be a summary of what was being reported in the media and provide some guidance to Ramey for his meeting with members of the press or for handling the queries that were being made.

There were also classified messages coming thought the communications center. Given the few words that can be read, it would seem that this memo deals with Roswell, and given the purpose of the reporter’s visit, that seems to underscore the connection to Roswell. If it does say, “Victims of the wreck,” does that change the tone of the discussion?

We’re told by skeptics, or rather one in particular, that the military wouldn’t use “victims,” but rather refer to them as “casualties.” If they were alien creatures, I’m not sure that would apply, but then, I don’t think that single phrase gets us to the extraterrestrial automatically anyway. It would seem that if the message does say “victims,” then the Mogul explanation is ruled out, but then I believe other facts have done that. This isn’t important.

To understand the real meaning of “Victims of the wreck,” we have to view it in context, and the context, if it can be read with any sort of clarity and consensus, would provide the information to understand the use of that term… or, in other words, that statement is not stand alone and cannot be stand alone. It must be viewed in the context of the message and if we can see that phrase with clarity, then the context probably would be understood as well.

While “Victims of the wreck,” might not take us immediately to the extraterrestrial, it would certainly start us on the path. The context would take us the rest of the way, or maybe more accurately, could take us the rest of the way. In some of the interpretations of the memo, there is enough there that the extraterrestrial would be the most likely answer... but before we get into a long discussion about this aspect, let me say that at the moment, we don’t have that context. We have many different interpretations.

And that is the problem. There are many different interpretations, many at odds with one another. We don’t have a consensus. In fact, there is not a consensus on “Victims of the wreck.” There are those who say that the phrase is actually, “Remains of the wreck,” which gives us a completely different interpretation, one that does not automatically rule out Mogul.

So, Johnson might have brought the document into the office. It might be the draft of a press release for Ramey. It might be a message that is unclassified or one that is classified. The question is if we can read the text, can this be clarified?

Yes.

There seems to be a “signature” block at the bottom of the message. If that can by read, it would provide a clue about the source of the document. If it is a “sign off” from a teletype then it probably came from the newspaper. If it’s Ramey’s signature, then it is probably a press release from his office. If it is someone else’s or a different organization, then we might be able to deduce whose and from where and that would be a valuable clue.


But here’s the real point. Until we learn if the new, improved scans provide us with some additional clarity, all of this is speculation. We really don’t know no matter who says what about the situation. I would have thought the skeptics would applaud the effort to clarify the situation. There has been little push back from the other end of the spectrum, even though a clear message might take down one of the best bits of evidence for the alien nature of the Roswell crash.

132 comments:

Steve Sawyer said...

Kevin, do you have any estimate of when the results of this newest effort to decipher the Ramey memo might be released, even if just a rough estimate?

I mean, are we talking about another month, several months, or what? How long has this current effort been going on, and who is involved in the re-analysis?

You also mentioned that a sticking factor regarding the release of any new research findings involves copyright issues related to the negatives -- could you clarify that matter for us?

Don said...

Kevin: If the victims or remains of a wreck is in question, then it seems the best thing to do is to research whether there were any events at that time that would be described that way, and that Ramey bore some responsibility, as under his command.

"It could be the draft of a press statement that Ramey planned to give or release. If so, then it would be unclassified and would probably not reveal much of anything."

I'd expect a signed statement on Hq 8th AAF stationary. There never was an official announcement of the weather balloon finding. What we have is a newspaper story and a reference to a radio broadcast.

Ramey's story was met with skepticism. The army may have decided to just drop the matter, instead, and encourage the press to do so, as well.

Regards,

Don

Brian Bell said...

If the event was extraterrestrial in nature, why wouldn't it hypothetically communicate something much clearer and more like this?

Top secret: Urgent

Crashed disc next new find west of debris site. Washington orders high alert. Possible recon planet Mars. Do not release.

Expedite collection of disc and crew for transport to WF. AMC to evaluate threat. One injured three dead. Resemble small children. Crew not Soviet. Do not release.

CIC orders cover story crashed "weather balloon".

Retract 509 press release. Secure all witnesses for debrief. Detain if necessary. Force authorized.

KRandle said...

All -

I don't want this to become another Not Roswell Slides where we keep everyone guessing. The scans were made at the University of Texas at Arlington in April using the best equipment and software available. It took time to find experts who had the time to travel to Texas. We have prepared a journal article that covers the history of the memo, the methodology involved in the scanning processes but we have not drawn the conclusions yet. As I have mentioned, our goal was to provide everything available so that everyone could understand how we had reached the conclusions. I had expected the process to be completed months ago, but that hasn't happened.

One of the problems is the ownership of the copyright on the original photograph and there are lawyers researching that. It means, simply, that the original copyright might still belong to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and copyright was not transferred with the photographs were donated to the Special Collections.

We have provided the scans (which are huge files) to some on the skeptical side of the fence to see what they can conclude from them. We have told them that there are some copyright issues that are being resolved which won't preclude them from announcing what they find, only that they must be careful about publication of the images.

We are currently hung up on these issues. Once we can get a consensus I'll make sure that you all learn of it. There will be no huge presentation in a large public arena but probably just the publication of the journal article, providing we can find an appropriate venue.

Right now I, like the rest of you, am waiting for the observations and conclusions from those who are examining the scans and bringing their expertise to bear. The results, whatever they are, will be published just as quickly as we can arrange it.

KRandle said...

Don -

If the memo was a draft of a press release, then it probably would not have been on official stationery but on plain paper. If it was a draft, it might have been superseded by subsequent events such as Johnson showing up and Ramey's later appearance on a radio broadcast. It might have simply been what we think of today as "talking points."

Brian -

This could have been one of a chain of communications... it could have been an early communication that had not been upgraded in status or classification. We have, from the newspapers, a chronology of the bulletins that came over the newspaper wires that updated the information as it became available. It could just be instructions on how to deal with the press...

If it dealt with the recovery of an alien craft, I would expect to see a classification on it and a precedent meaning something like "routine" or "immediate" or "urgent." But then we are dealing with a piece of paper that is folded, bent and not facing the camera which is why there is confusion on the interpretation of the memo. I hope that when we get done here we have a consensus on what the memo says.

BTW, I don't believe the CIC would be issuing the orders... those would come down through SAC. And, since this would probably one of many communications, I doubt that everything would be stuck in it. What I hope we can do is clarify the message so that we might be able to drawn some logical conclusions.

TheDimov said...

I think this sort of detective work is what is needed, because the Ramey memo in my opinion is the closest thing to a smoking gun we have, and to look into the minutiae surrounding the document is the most positive step forward.

When I read it years ago "Victims of the wreck" hit me immediately, its what my brain deciphered it as upon first read, and what I could decipher even from the untouched Not Roswell Slides ended up being exactly what I first had read so I tend to think that what is first perceived is usually right, at least with me anyway. I tend to agree with Kevin in that 'casualties' would be a term used for humans, and 'victims' shows they are uncertain as to what they are dealing with. This is what I take from it anyway.

I cant wait for the updates on the new scans.

Brian Bell said...

By the way, as suggested, a quick examination of vintage 1940's newspapers shows use of the plural noun "victims" in such things as murders, car wrecks, airplane crashes, and train wrecks. This may indicate the teletype is more akin to something press related.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Hello,

An "agnostic" question cause English not my tong:

Why to use "X" for "DISC" or "RANCH" here?
Do you have historiographical examples where such punctuation uses (I mean X nouns with "X" between) in "similar" alleged military documents?
Or "my" remark is pointing to something more "civilian" (press related) than "military" (top super hypra secret) too.

Regards,

Gilles

KRandle said...

Gilles -

There are many questions that I hope will be resolved. I mentioned to David long ago that there was no military jargon in the text but then I have seem military documents that avoid that jargon... Some teletypes of that era had no punctuation so that it said CMA for comma and PD for period for example. Others did include the punctuation. Right now we have some clues but they are faint meaning that the new scans have not resolved our questions but it might just be a question of applying the proper software, not unlike the problem of reading the placard in the Not Roswell Slides. For me, there just isn't enough yet to determine if it was military or civilian.

ADA said...

I like many others who follow this blog, applaud your efforts for continued investigation and eventual closure on this document. I am eagerly waiting in anticipation for something to come from this. The Roswell case is so fascinating for many reasons, and I can't thank you enough for all the work you've done to bring us closer to the truth - no matter the outcome. I'm also grateful for all the commenters here as they often provides many good insights and keep the discussion alive (and interesting).

Gilles Fernandez said...

Ok, Kevin,

I will wait then. I dont understand the use of "" for ranch ("RANCH") in the decypheration I read here or there supporting a "classified" document. Looks like "civilian" or "press media" for me. Idem to use "" for "DISC"
Now, I have not your tong. Maybe something not important, just pointing ;)

Best regards,

Gilles.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Kevin, perhaps the Journal of Scientific Exploration would be interested in publishing the paper. I don't know if you presently have or would like to have an editor. I have written and edited numerous academic papers and am a retired academic. I think this paper will be significant and therefore offer you my editing services without charge. If you are interested, email me at jeanne.ruppert@gmail.com. I would have communicated this to you by email but do not have an email address for you.

Wind Swords said...

Kevin,

As I have said before in your first posting on this, even though I am skeptical about Roswell I welcome this effort to decipher the Ramey Memo, wherever if leads.

"We have provided the scans (which are huge files) to some on the skeptical side of the fence to see what they can conclude from them."

IIRC Lance Moody has some expertise in this area. Could that be why we have not heard from him lately?

At any rate, I hope your process (open source, input from all sides of the issue) in this matter is adopted by other UFO researchers and investigators. It would be a good thing for Ufology. I hereby name this process The Randle Method.

John's Space said...

Kevin,

It seems to me that the use of the term "victims" would be a most unlikely term for the dead (or injured) alien beings from the crash. Wouldn't something like "creatures" or something like that me more appropriate. I would think that "victims of the crash" would be used if the "victims" were human.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see where this new investigation leads.

Brian,

I found your version of a what the Ramey teletype would have said in the event of an actual ET crash to be funny.

Neal Foy said...

Kevin

As a photographer I find the copyright issue very interesting. The original copyright would belong to the newspaper under what's known as work for hire. If the documentation for the donatiopn to the University doesn't specifically state that the copyright was transfered then it still belongs to the newspaper. Copyright must be transfered in writing.

Regardless of who owns the copyright is the issue of Fair Use. On the surface it would appear that Fair Use could be claimed on at least two points.The law allows for critique and educational use. Unfortunately it's a lot more complicated than that and IMO the lawyers should be exploring that option.

Here's one for the balloonaticts. The victims of the wreck were Foster and Brazel because it made a mess on Foster's ranch and Brazel had to clean it up. That's ridiculous of course but no more ridiculous than believing the stupid balloon story.

Anthony Mugan said...

Hello all

I have been pondering if I should say anything at all on this topic for reasons I will explain, however, I will say where I've got to and leave it at that.

Some years ago I spent some time looking at the Ramey memo and, for small sections that seemed amenable to analysis came in the end to largely the same conclusions as Dr Rudiak (I do have a preference for '...victims of the wreck for convay on... but the substance of that line is the same). Sometime later it struck me that it was possible, in principle, to remove much of the subjective nature of my earlier work.

I used ImageJ software to digitise sections of the memo - I started with the 'victims of the wreck' phrase to test out the concept with an interesting bit of text.
I then calculated the degree of similarity between each letter and a comparable quantification of the relevant teletype font.
Initially as a pilot test of the method I focused only on these words and on a comparison of the suggested reads only (e.g. remains, finding, victims.

There are a number of practical issues to address - not least the choice of threshold of brightness to use for quantification of match as the memo is generally very dark and with a lot noise in it. Curves in the paper make the area covered by letters somewhat variable and this introduces another layer of subjectivity.

However - using the lower quartile of values (i.e. darkest 25%) of data points in the memo as the values to calculate the degree of match on, I ended up with the following.

Word 1 (victims, remains or Finding). The figures are p values using Chi squared
letter 1: v = 0.04 (sig), f= 0.67 r=0.21.
letter 2: I = 0.0002 (sig) E= 0.916 (almost significantly different with few matches)
letters 3 and 4 - no significant matches - basically just noise
letter 5 I = 0.0004 (sig)
Letter 6 N = 0.006 (sig) M = 0.23
Letter 7 I = 0.042, G = 0.073

Discussion for word 1
Taking just the significant matches we have:
VI**INS

Which doesn't make sense, unless he is discussing violins. We can however eliminate 'remains' and 'finding' from consideration. If the 'n' is a false positive due to noise the 'victims' remains in play as M is not too unlikely a match here.

Word 2 ((of)
This one is simple - O = 0.026 and F = 0.05. This word is very probably 'of'

I then jumped to word 4 'wreck' (to cut to the chase):
letter 1 w = 0.043 (sig)
letters 2,3 and 4 - too much noise
letter 5: k = 0.036 (sig).

At this point I stopped, because this is not a game, this is real and there are immense consequences if this phrase reads 'victims of the wreck'. At the moment I haven't taken the analysis far enough to say with total certainty that that is what it does say - for example the comparison should be done against all possible letters and numbers and the rather curious match to N at letter 6 complicates the interpretation. There are also subjective elements to the analysis such as the boundaries of each letter area, the choice of thresholds for matching etc which need to be locked down before this could be considered a robust method.

It does however, look very likely that the phrase is 'victims of the wreck'

I decided to report all this here as others may choose to take this forward but given the implications I suspect anyone getting close to confirming this will be on the receiving end of some pretty heavy duty attention and I not at the point in my life where I can take that on. For those aware of my sudden withdrawl from this work, that is the reason - cowardice!

So, there you are...good luck and best wishes.



Lance said...

Anthony,

Can you post, from any peer reviewed journal, a' citation for work that confirms and uses your technique to do similar recovery?


Lance

Lance said...

By the way, I have always imagined (which is basically all one can do) that the word looked like VIEWING. I still think this after examining the new scans. Notice that Anthony would only need make the same stipulation of ignoring one significant result to get to VIEWING. Interesting, but sadly typical, that he didn't notice this.

Lance

cda said...

The Ramey memo is the sole piece of 'hardware' the ETHers possess (or at least it is a photo of the sole piece of hardware). The rest of the debris in these 6 photos is a continuation of this 'sole piece of hardware' theme. Therefore the ETHers will naturally cling onto it for dear life until it is finally laid to rest, if it ever is.

Isn't it VERY strange that even after 68 years the only thing we have that has the slightest chance of proving ETs once landed on our planet is an ageing photograph of a supposed top secret message written by an unknown (possibly military) person to another unknown person that MAY contain the phrase "victims of the wreck"?

I repeat: where is all the other supporting evidence? IS THAT ALL THERE IS? Is this all that science has to work on? Absolutely amazing!

Brian Bell said...

No doubt if the teletype does say "victims of the wreck" there will be much debate over what it truly means. For some it means "alien bodies" but like anything else you have to take into account other aspects of the memo as well. There are other takes on what word might be mistakenly read as "victims". The same is true of other word phrases.

For instance, KR has posted previously on the memo subject rather extensively.

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/09/ramey-memo-and-barry-greenwood.html?m=1

Greenwood's interpretation was mocked, jeered, and pummeled by some ET advocates.

Without repeating it all, KR wrote, 'We can now say that the Ramey document, line 5 reads:'
"….WARREN HAUGHT, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER AT ROSWELL, SAID."

Is this still in question or will it stand? We know some press articles from UP did mangle Haut's name using "Warren Haught" instead.

This seems to connect the error to a press mistake which then seems to indicate the Ramey memo is indeed something news oriented but not official military and not top secret.

Additional commentary can be read here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/05/general-ramey-and-his-memo.html?m=1

KRandle said...

Brian -

If we can read "victims of the wreck" to the satisfaction of many, I would guess that we can read the rest as well... I would suggest that the context might provide the clues about who wrote the memo which would suggest how much importance we can assign to it. Our purpose was to clarify an issue and not prove a specific point.

Don said...

Brian wrote: "This seems to connect the error to a press mistake which then seems to indicate the Ramey memo is indeed something news oriented but not official military and not top secret."

A memo in Ramey's hand reading "victims of the wreck" and also sourcing it to "Haught" would be very interesting information as no story in the Roswell newscycle referred to any such.

Regards,

Don

Lance said...

I have certainly been all for at least trying to see if the text can be teased out of the photos.

I see that as a good idea that very well might provide some definitive information and I really don't see why anyone would fault the effort.

But I have seen all of the new scans and sadly the text does not seem to be any clearer than before. This is not the same problem as the Roswell slides. That was a problem of actual blurring. With the Ramey memo, the text isn't so much blurred as it is just too low a resolution. The actual data is lost in the picture elements. This is the current status as far as I am aware and I hope that Kevin doesn't mean to imply that there has been some breakthrough. I don't believe there has been.

The kind of self-created "science" that David Rudiak (and now Anthony) brings to the table doesn't help matters. The truth isn't voted upon. As you may know, Rudiak thinks he has deciphered most of the memo. But reading his supposed memo is a very funny experience. While it does represent a string of words, somewhat arranged into English grammar, it makes zero sense (even considering that it may have the clipped language of a telegram). Of course, it attempts to include as many silly saucer buff/conspiracy theory words as possible.

In short, it is wholly unconvincing unless you happen to be a rabid believer.

There may well be some real science or technique that could produce convincing results in the way the Roswell slides team did for that debacle. But I predict that it won't come from the working-backwards-to-achieve-a-desired-result pseudoscience that is the stock in trade of UFO "researchers".

Lance

Brian Bell said...

There's still the issue of the quotes surrounding key words in the teletype.

Their use is not conventional or by mistake.

The plural noun "victims" and the noun "disc" are highlighted by the use of Scare Quotes which are only used when the author intends to convey something other than the common use of the words.

Any English grammar guide for news writing spells this out nicely.

If you are the author of some bit of text and you find yourself using a word or phrase in which your usage isn't intended to signify its literal or convention meaning; or if you do not accept the usage of a phrase (or the phrase itself); or you feel that your usage is potentially ironic, or feel it's a misnomer and you wish to distance yourself from the quoted text- THEN, put it in scare quotes!!

Meaning whomever authored the text wasn't necessarily agreeing with the words marked by Scare Quotes. If so, it indicates the author was suspect of such claims being factual.

That could be anyone in the press or military.

Lance said...

Brian, seriously,

I know you mean well but you really ought to become familiar with the material prior offering any opinion.
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.

Even though your opinion is often ostensibly skeptical of the Roswell myth, your analyses are often so flawed and your command of the facts so lackluster that you end up presenting easy to topple nonsense for those on the other side to deal with.

As a skeptic, I have to say please stop helping us.

I realize that plenty of folks may well feel the same way about me. So be it.

Lance

cda said...

The "working-backwards-to-achieve-a-desired-result" phrase used by Lance reminds me that Stanton Friedman, and a few others, used to tell us that the capture of the Roswell craft enabled US scientists to "backwards-engineer" the acquired technology to produce our own modern high tech aircraft and maybe even development of the H-bomb. And of course there was the nitinol affair at the Battelle Institute, so beloved by Tony Bragalia.

So 'backwards-engineering' does work (after a fashion)!

Don said...

Brian, you comment on "scare quotes" is accurate. Worth a read, if you are unfamiliar with the "use-mention distinction":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use-mention_distinction

Regards,

Don

albert said...

@Neal,
I think a good argument could be made for Fair Use. Only a very small area will be used for educational and research purposes.

According to wiki, "works published before 1964 and _not renewed_ are in the public domain." The renewal date for a 1947 copyright was 1975. Unless a photo is particularly iconic, I can't see a newspaper trying to keep track of extending its copyrights. 28 years is a long time in any business.

Is the Ramey Memo pic that iconic?

. .. . .. _ _ _

Neal Foy said...

@Albert

I agree with what you said and in addition a copyright that is not defended can pass into public domain. This picture has been published on the internet numerous times and probably in books that were for profit. If the owner of the copyright doesn't defend it may pass into public domain for that reason.

KRandle said...

All -

Argue about copyright all you want, but I can make a case that these new scans, can by copyrighted because they are new scans and add something to the overall, dare I say it, picture. And, those at UTA advised that the copyright is not clear so we are just being cautious. They're working with the lawyers at the university.

Brian -

Where did you get the idea that there are quotation marks around victims of the wreck? I used the quotation marks in my posting to show a point that I was quoting, or rather, what some believed the memo said. Nothing "scare" about them.

CDA -

I don't know if Stan ever said, "Backwards engineering" but I'll bet he did say, "Reverse engineering," though I could be wrong on this. Part of the old ATIC (which has a new name now) had a section devoted to reverse engineering military equipment from other parts of the world.

Brian Bell said...

"Victims" -

Indeed my error on that one. It gets used so often as "evidence" with quotes that it almost seems as though it should be.

But while you all criticize my mentioning it, both skeptic and believer still must explain the teletype's quotation marks around "disk".

You haven't done it.

As far as I can tell no one has bothered with it (yet). You're all seemingly a bit more focused on "victims".

And for the uninformed, the term "Scare Quotes" is not mine. See your dictionary.

Lastly neither Kevin nor Lance has commented on Kevin's older post where he stated very clearly one disputed line states, "WARREN HAUGHT, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER SAID."

cda said...

It makes me wonder if Bill Moore was right all along. He had no means of deciphering the memo but still said (using some psychic powers?), in THE ROSWELL INCIDENT, that the teletype was merely the text of what Ramey planned to read over the radio later that afternoon. Does anyone have a recording of this broadcast? It might, just might provide the answer we have all been waiting for.

But it will be a terrible, and perhaps fatal, letdown for the ETHers if it is.

Don said...

Brian, DXR54 has disc in single quotes. Looking at one of Johnson's photos in the Albuquerque Journal, the caption has: 'disc' and "flying disc".

The problem with use-mention scare quotes is there is no prescriptive rule for it, so it is a matter of choice for the individual (or the style book of the newspaper). Usually double quotes mean just that, a quotation, and single quotes, a 'mention'.

Regards,

Don

zoamchomsky said...

"I have seen all of the new scans and sadly the text does not seem to be any clearer than before."

Too bad.

So, until an imaging scientist creates an algorithm that produces an unambiguously legible, readable picture of some part of the memo--if that's possible--we're left with subjectively interpreted smudges.

"Does anyone have a recording of this broadcast?"

Or even the text of the broadcast for comparison.

Either of these, or anything but the guesswork we have so far.

albert said...

@Neal,

A work can only enter public domain if:

1. The work is not renewed (in the Ramey Memo case, in its 28th year)
2. The legal time limit has expired
3. The copyright holder relinquishes the copyright

'Defending' has nothing to do with it.
................

@Kevin,
"... I can make a case that these new scans, can by[be?] copyrighted because they are new scans and add something to the overall, dare I say it, picture. ..." I don't understand your point. Can be copyrighted by whom? One can't take a portion of a copyrighted work, without infringing. If you're talking about a 'derivative work', you'll probably need a trial to determine that. It's a murky area.

Assuming the copyright is still valid (simple enough to search for that 28th year renewal), Fair Use is the only choice here.

@cda,
That would be great, but given the state of recording technology in 1947, a little miracle. You had disk cutters, wire recorders, and tape was just coming into the market.

. .. . .. _ _ _ ....

cda said...

Albert:

I did once hear a recording of Kenneth Arnold's interview to a reporter soon after his June 24 sighting. Admittedly it was a 3rd or 4th generation copy, but at least it shows it was recorded on something at the time - only days before Roswell. You can still get recordings of old radio shows dating back 75 years or more, so there is still hope (rather faint I concede).

Don said...

CDA, there is the one broadcast to be found on David's website. Many shows were preserved as well as a lot of broadcasts from WWII, but news broadcasts, generally, were not archived, afaict.

The Arnold broadcast quality appears to suffer from being slightly faster than normal -- an artifact I've noticed in other old radio recordings (it sounds like they're talking really fast). I don't know if it is due to dubbing, or whether folks back then really did talk faster when on air.

Regards,

Don

zoamchomsky said...

Commercial tape recorders were produced in the 1940s.

The question isn't the technology. The question is if they had a recorder of any kind in Roswell that day, whether they bothered to record the broadcast and if it was preserved, and then not lost or destroyed after more than sixty years.

All possible, but terribly unlikely.

David Rudiak said...

As to the use of "scare quotes" around "DISC" in the Ramey memo, commonly done at the time because the terms "flying disc" and "flying saucer" were brand new, less than 2 weeks old, coined within 3 days of Kenneth Arnold's June 24 sighting. They were used as generic terms to describe what Arnold reported and what other witnesses were now reporting, namely new, strange, high speed flying objects often (though not always) described as saucer or disc-like in shape. (Extensive reviews of newspapers back then indicates several thousand reported sightings, probably ~40% having something along the lines of a discoid/saucer shape. For whatever reasons, the terms stuck and became the common description of ANY such strange unidentified flying object until the Air Force invented UFO in 1953 to replace it. The USAF definition of UFO meant specifically ONLY those reports of flying objects which were anomalous in shape and/or performance, which remained unidentified even after study by their experts, and were to be studied for national security reasons and their "technical aspects." )

The scare quotes in this case ("DISC"), denote a new, unusual, or nonstandard use of the word. It MIGHT denote dubiousness on the part of the writer, or it might NOT, the writer instead using the term everybody else was using as a convenient shorthand. It MIGHT denote the object being described was disc-like, or it might NOT.

Trying to interpret the "scare quotes" around "DISC" as somehow proving the author (Ramey) did not believe he had anything significant on his hands is reading far too much into the use of the quote marks. It could just as easily have been something highly significant, namely one of the weird, high speed objects people were reporting, but not necessarily a true disc, but some other shape (or maybe it was discoid but a half disc, e.g.), but since this was a telegram, he will just call it a "disc" for brevity, as others were doing. (The Roswell base press, e.g., also called it a flying disc.) The recipient (Gen. Vandenberg at the Pentagon in this case) will know exactly what was being referred to based on previous communications.

Another thing I notice the debunkers doing is trying to treat words in isolation, which strips them of nuance. Words are used in phrases, sentences, inbedded in other sentences, further imbedded in known historical circumstances, which provide contextual nuanced meaning they don't have if treated in isolation.

E.g., "DISC" is in the phrase "IN THE 'DISC'", referencing something of importance INSIDE the object being called a "disc". Needless to say, I think the partial word before this phrase at the beginning of the sentence and paragraph also refers to bodies recovered, the word being CA)DAVERS. This is in the sentence immediately following the one that reads "AND THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK YOU FORWARDED TO THE (Ramey's thumb.....T)EAM AT FORT WORTH, TEX.

There is also the phrase (something else found) "NEAR OPERATION AT THE (Ramey's thumb but obviously a location) just before "AND THE VICTIMS...." In military jargon, an OPERATION is a big deal, something usually of great importance involving many men and usually classified. Ramey isn't referring to lousy "detail", like digging latrines, or two guys retrieving a bagful of balloon junk from a ranch, but something MUCH bigger and very important.

In the FULL context of the message, clearly "DISC" is not being used by Ramey to refer to a radar target balsa wood kite (what he was publicly equating the Roswell base "flying disc" to at that very moment the photo was taken). Nope, "the 'disc'" was something big enough to hold bodies and something very important. It could even be BB's magical military super-secret project. (If only he had some actual evidence of such.)

Lance said...

And as we see, David pretends that all of the silly interpretations that he has made for the memo are already proven (and in fairness to him, in Flying Saucer Land they are).

When David uses the word "clearly" one can scarcely overstate the baggage that he brings along with it.

This kind of self-unaware believerism is why UFOs are only good for the yucks.

Now let me predict that David will take my post and replace some of the words with his own fantasy demonology of "Skeptibunkers" and so forth. Although he has done that about a hundred times, he still somehow thinks it's amusing.

Lance

Brian Bell said...

Cadavers?

And so if there becomes agreement (maybe there already is) regarding (CA) DAVERS in the text, we should also consider the use of that word.

We can see that commonly used nouns describing dead people were not used as we might suspect. The text does not use "bodies", "dead bodies", "deceased", or "corpse". How many people would actually say "cadavers" to refer to people who were killed in a crash? If you typed a memo today would you use that word? Probably not.

eg "Honey, on the way home today I saw a car wreck and 'cadavers' were strewn all over the freeway"....?

If we examine the contextual use of words, just as DR says isn't being done (but is), then we can define "cadaver" as possibly something different.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/

"A cadaver is a dead human body used in scientific or medical research. If you are dead, you are a corpse, but if Dr. Frankenstein robs your grave so he can use your body for research, you become a cadaver. Cadaver comes from the Latin verb, cadere, which means “to fall." Its English origins refer to soldiers who died in battle, i.e. the fallen. Dissection of a cadaver is a major rite of passage for medical school students––some have been known to run from the room and throw up — though most surprise themselves."

So that noun typically refers to the prior deceased whose bodies are used in medical research.

If you take that into context you get shades of Redfern and his account from unnamed sources that the deceased were used in high altitude tests and radioactive experiments conducted in those years.

I don't think you can compleyely rule out such a device may have crashed given that balloons were used in that era for such research.

Why the coverup? Would it be wise for the military to tell the truth?

eg "Dear citizens, the wreck referred to is not a flying disc at all. Over the past few years we have been illegally stealing dead bodies from morgues, hospitals, and prisons and subjecting them to various radioactive tests at high altitude. We realize this sounds horrific, but it really is in your best interest. And after all they were dead to begin with. We are doing this in secret to get a jump on the Soviets who are developing an atomic bomb with the intent to use it against us. We want to determine if you would all die from radiation exposure when and if they drop it on us. We just thought you should know."

cda said...

Brian:

I completely agree with your comments on the word "cadavers". I feel Dr Rudiak is still living in a fantasy world, but probably none of us will ever convince him, and his followers, otherwise.

The problem with this memo, or teletype, is surely that if it contains what DR says it does, it most certainly would NOT have been destroyed, but would still be around, along with a myriad of other paperwork on the Roswell case. It would be far too important to just destroy.

Alas none has ever been found, and you can safely bet it never will be. It is just more fantasy, like the ET debris and the alien 'cadavers'.

zoamchomsky said...

I agree with Lance and cda and have, again, elsewhere compared DR's unhealthy pareidolic Ramey-memo fantasy to the similar "face on Mars" delusion. That delusion did not end well or easily for some of its advocates when the MOC showed it to be nothing but an eroded mesa.

And I think the Ramey-memo fantasy will not end well for those possessed by a similar credulousness and unquestioning belief. It's never too late, David, to admit that you just might be wrong, very wrong, about what the Ramey memo says.

Brian Bell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian Bell said...

I agree.

And the response from believers is typically something like:

"The memo does still exist, it's just hidden away in some secret classified place".

Or even better:

"They destroyed it as part of the cosmic coverup."

And off they go into merry old la la land...

Don Maor said...

Brian Bell "So that noun typically refers to the prior deceased whose bodies are used in medical research. If you take that into context you get shades of Redfern and his account from unnamed sources that the deceased were used in high altitude tests and radioactive experiments conducted in those years."

Preposterous, just as almost everything coming from the mind of Brian Bell. Notice that "Prior deceased" is completely incompatible with the word "victims", so your theory is BS. Not strange to see CDA agreeing with such absurd BB's reasoning.

On the other hand, Ramey, or whoever wrote the Memo, was most probably NOT an expert in English langauge to know the exact meaning of cadaver. Even if he was a english idiom expert, and in case of finding alien bodies, their bodies very likely were to be analyzed and studied, so so the use of the word cadaver would have been still fairly correct. I stick to the idea that Ramey was not an English expert. (I think Kevin would be a very rare case of a soldier with writing abilities).

Don Maor said...

zoamchomsky said "And I think the Ramey-memo fantasy will not end well for those possessed by a similar credulousness and unquestioning belief."

The funny part zoamey, is that ufologists involved or making the study more or less don't give a crap about what you think.

The word "victims" still seems likely to be in the pictured paper.

Don Maor said...

Lance said:

"Now let me predict that David will take my post and replace some of the words with his own fantasy demonology of "Skeptibunkers" and so forth. Although he has done that about a hundred times, he still somehow thinks it's amusing."

But, I believe David indeed sometimes displays a good ability for making fun from skeptics. On the other hand, however, making fun of your friend skeptibunkers is not that hard. Think it well, Brian Bell is almost always factually wrong on something, CDA's logic is almost always flawed in some link of his "logical" chain of reasoning, etc.

Lance said...

"The word "victims" still seems likely to be in the pictured paper."

To deluded UFO believers, yes.
Not to anyone honest.

The word in question is unclear. Anyone saying anything beyond that is either a liar or deluded or just wrong.

In the latest scans, "VIEWING" seems to be the word to my eye. But I'm not so dishonest that I would say that this is likely...it's much too unclear for that. And I certainly wouldn't create some fake "science" based on probability to support my claim. The truth isn't determined that way.

I would still hope that some technology or expertise might lead us further down the road but that hasn't happened yet. 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.


Lance

cda said...

Don Maor:

Don't get too worried. Even if that Ramey memo is finally debunked (which of course it won't be), you still have that magnificent, all conquering and superbly convincing document called "SOM1-01" (or some such title) to fall back on.

So for you it is heads you ETHers win, tails we skeptics lose. Simple, isn't it?

Nitram Ang said...

Don correctly posted:

"But, I believe David indeed sometimes displays a good ability for making fun from skeptics. On the other hand, however, making fun of your friend skeptibunkers is not that hard. Think it well, Brian Bell is almost always factually wrong on something, CDA's logic is almost always flawed in some link of his "logical" chain of reasoning, etc."

Lance - you must admit that Don ha this pretty much right on the button.

I think he could have said it more forcefully even:

Brian Bell is always factually wrong with his posts, CDA's logic is always flawed in some link of his "logical" chain of reasoning, etc."

Personally I believe you should distance yourself from both CDA and BB.

Regards
Nitram

Nitram Ang said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zoamchomsky said...

No, Don, the really funny part is that you're already doing exactly what the "face on Mars" believers did when faced with a high-resolution image of an eroded mesa: They refused to admit what everyone could plainly see and bellowed their belief.

That's called "Siege Mentality," a good indication that DR's Ramey-memo fantasy is crumbling.

Don Maor said...

Lance demands honesty, but in turn he seems to be dishonest. He is just throwing the possibility of the word "VIEWING", but immediately abandoning the vessel, like a rat.

An honest approach would be to say that the words "VIEWING" AND "VICTIMS" are similar, and that both are candidates, in principle. But in this case honesty is consistent with further research. A little deeper analysis should be made by Lance on why he believes "VIEWING" is likely, or even if he believes it is more likely than "VICTIMS". And then to explain WHY is it more likely. Questions such as: Is the last word more likely to be a S or a G? or is the third word an E or a C may be important to be answered. Or what would be the context or purpose of the word "VIEWING"? Lance's purpose seems to be just to seed the doubt, but without justifying his assertions, and then trying to flee. Let's talk about honesty.

Don Maor said...

"No, Don, the really funny part is that you're already doing exactly what the "face on Mars" believers did when faced with a high-resolution image of an eroded mesa: They refused to admit what everyone could plainly see and bellowed their belief."

You certainly don't know what are you talking about here zoam. Just shut up.

Lance said...

Don, you are rather dull, aren't you?

"An honest approach would be to say that the words "VIEWING" AND "VICTIMS" are similar, and that both are candidates, in principle."

Yes, I do say that. I say it above. You can read, can you not?

"A little deeper analysis should be made by Lance on why he believes "VIEWING" is likely, or even if he believes it is more likely than "VICTIMS". And then to explain WHY is it more likely."

I thought I was clear above. I don't say that one is more likely--there isn't enough data or information to do that.

My purpose isn't to seed doubt. It is to state facts. I know that in your flying saucer world, things ALWAYS point to Saucer Jesus. But in the real world, sometimes there is ambiguity or simply a lack of information.

Lance

Nitram Ang said...

Hello Lance

You state:

"You told me that the forensic photographer gave a tepid qualification that "he reckoned he could see "Victims".

This is hardly the same as saying that the word is likely.

Of course, you also admitted that Rudiak primed the gentleman with VICTIMS from the get go."

We may have to discuss this privately by email/phone.

I certainly did not say that "Rudiak primed the gentleman with VICTIMS from the get go" - this is not the sort of "language" I would use (even if that were the case I certainly wouldn't tell you that - it would only create problems - which you kinda of have done now...)

I was not in Texas unfortunately when the group met and Simon certainly didn't make that comment to me when he returned from his travels. The people who accompanied David were not believers and were only interested in trying to read what was on the bit of paper - in it's entirety. Yes, they new it related to Roswell but they had not been provided with any of the work done by David (or his own "wishful interpretation" - if you like). Once again Lance - these sort of comments are not helpful.

Everybody is no doubt amused by your statement (DR excepted of course) but since you enjoy a good laugh I will tell you that everytime a scan was done - David was as eager as ever to get hold of it to try and read the thing!

We can debate "seeing is believing" if you like. Maybe you might except "quite likely" then?

Regardless my point is that "victims" to him was the most likely word - and no he hadn't been primed.

Someone else has kindly done some work for me in the past - computer software type background using algorithms and he also stated that he thought the word in question was "most likely" "Victims".

If you disagree that's fine but please be careful in terms of the words you chose to write - it may save me having to phone people who I have a great deal of respect for and apologize profusely (so maybe email me if it's easier)

Regards
Nitram.

Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nitram Ang said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don Maor said...

Lance said:
Don, you are rather dull, aren't you?

In fact my second name is Dall

Yes, I do say that. I say it above. You can read, can you not?

Yes, you said that in the meantime I was writing my message. It took you some time to clarify things, thanks, but not enough to be really honest.

I thought I was clear above. I don't say that one is more likely--there isn't enough data or information to do that.

Oh, maybe you are not trying hard enough, or don't want to try harder. Chickens come to my mind.

My purpose isn't to seed doubt. It is to state facts.
Right. Now you are a fact stater.

I know that in your flying saucer world, things ALWAYS point to Saucer Jesus. But in the real world, sometimes there is ambiguity or simply a lack of information.

So there is ambiguity and lack of information? Oh please tell that to your skeptibunker friend zoamey, who somehow believes that the new high resolution scans confirm his stiff dogmas.

Don Maor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Young said...

Just a small point, but we might be looking too deeply into why "victims" (if "victims" really is in the text, of course) would not have been used instead of "casualties"....or why "cadaver" wouldn't have been used instead of words such as "deceased" or "corpse".

We're not factoring in that whoever authored the text simply didn't realise there were subtle differences between "cadaver and "corpse".
I certainly didn't, until Brian highlighted the difference as described in vocabulary.com. (Then again,as many here would have noticed,my mastery of grammar, sentence structure,etc, leaves a lot to be desired...innit?)

Like many words in our vast and regionally varying language, some of the differences in meanings are as small as a dimple on a pimple on a microbes bum!

Maybe in the town where the author of the Ramey memo comes from, the "go to" word when describing a dead bloke just happened to be "cadaver"....
Where I come from...we call them "stiffs".

Don Maor said...

CDA said:

Don't get too worried. Even if that Ramey memo is finally debunked (which of course it won't be), you still have that magnificent, all conquering and superbly convincing document called "SOM1-01" (or some such title) to fall back on.

Yes the Ramey Memo is really interesting for me as a lurker, and the SOM1-01 is interesting to me, although controversial. But my input to human knowledge is, for now, not whithin ufology

Paul Young said...

...and as I pan down through the comments, I read Don Maor making more or less the same point as my last post!

Apologies for (inadvertently) plagiarising your thoughts Don. :-)

Nitram Ang said...

After discussing with Lance:

The word in question (Victims?) is unclear. “Victims” while a strong possibility, is among several strong candidate words.

Lance has stated after seeing the latest scans, "VIEWING" seems to be the word to his eye.

We would still hope that some technology or expertise might lead us further down the road but that hasn't happened just yet.

Regards
Nitram

Lance said...

Yes, I agree with the above.

Currently, there are several known possibilities but no proof that cements any one of them.

I don't say VIEWING is any more likely than any other word. Nor is VICTIMS.

And anyone who claims that they have proven the matter is incorrect.


Lance

cda said...

Don:

Don't worry: I have at last reluctantly discovered the proof that the SOM01-1 is real! Look at chapter 5, sections 25 and 26 (Retrieval and Preservation, of "non-living organisms") of the said document. The word 'cadavers' appears THREE times.

But this is the very word David Rudiak has so remarkably deciphered from the Ramey memo!

What more proof do you need, or does anyone need? SOM01-1 is genuine, and the Ramey memo proves it.

You win, I lose. Case closed.

cda said...

Nitram, or Martin:

"We would still hope that some technology or expertise might lead us further down the road but that hasn't happened just yet."

Why say 'just yet'? Do you REALLY expect it to happen, ever? Far better to concentrate on SOM01-1 (or SOM1-01). At least we can actually read its whole contents and not have to worry about super high-tech decipherment!

Brian Bell said...

And a very merry Hallowed Ween to all. No doubt the believers here will be dressing in fashion this evening as their favorite fictional character - The Roswell Alien Cadaver.

@ Don:

"I stick to the idea that Ramey was not an English expert. (I think Kevin would be a very rare case of a soldier with writing abilities)."

Perhaps you mean he was the druling idiot DR prefers (not)?

Just because English isn't your first language I'd be careful of making accusations that an American citizen born in Texas and raised in the US who happened to survive Pear Harbor and climb the military chain of command didn't have a good handle on his English or writing skills.

I think it far more likely that description is of you based on what you post.

But just to toss you a morsel of hope, that the Texas cowboy himself just loved to call dead things "cadavers", I'll point out that he did once consider becoming an MD.

Surpising that you and your fellow believers couldn't even find that word connection yourself while you claim to be reading the memo for its "context" and "author".

And of course just as you say, KR is the only retired serviceman in US history to ever have writing skills.

I think it's time you go Trick or Treating now....

Don Maor said...

Brian, stop telling me irrelevant or absurd clauses. You theory is already out.

Don Maor said...

CDA, subjected to a clown frenzy, said:

Don: Don't worry: I have at last reluctantly discovered the proof that the SOM01-1 is real! Look at chapter 5, sections 25 and 26 (Retrieval and Preservation, of "non-living organisms") of the said document. The word 'cadavers' appears THREE times.

But this is the very word David Rudiak has so remarkably deciphered from the Ramey memo!

What more proof do you need, or does anyone need? SOM01-1 is genuine, and the Ramey memo proves it.

You win, I lose. Case closed.


Relax CDA, I would separate the Ramey Memo and the SOM1-01. But anyway, I see you are kind of interested in the SOM1-01 lately. Good, good.

KRandle said...

Brian -

Please point to the place where Don said, "And of course just as you say, KR is the only retired serviceman in US history to ever have writing skills."

Brian Bell said...

Yes Kevin find a better way of interpreting Don's message when he says:

"I stick to the idea that Ramey was not an English expert. (I think Kevin would be a very rare case of a soldier with writing abilities)."

If he means what he says, then you're the rare exception since other US servicemen can't write like you.

zoamchomsky said...

" zoam believes that the new high resolution scans confirm his stiff dogmas."

You're confused, Don. I said, "Old or new scans, I don't know how anyone can claim to see anything at all.

"And the greatest possibility for resolution will come--not from guesswork--but from imaging scientists who can custom design a processing algorithm."

I've seen it done on raw images of the surface of Mars that appeared completely black but were known to contain visible images. Whether similar processing would resolve the memo's text--when there may be too little there--is the question.

And telling people to "shut up" only again indicates a desperate siege mentality about DR's unhealthy pareidolic Ramey-memo fascination and its imminent demise.

I don't see any "dogma" in any of that. I would like nothing more than to see the memo resolved. It's too bad that this digitizing effort wasn't more successful.

Tim Hebert said...

I see that another side issue has developed concerning military officers writing abilities. I don't know what official writing aids that Kevin had at his disposal while in the Army, but in the Air Force we were all given a copy of "Tongue and Quill" to aid in writing clearly and effectively. This covered everything from simple Memo for Records, official letters to staffing coordination documents. The idea was to write in a clear and concise fashion. It was not designed to win a Noble or Pulitzer in literature.

Perhaps its more style vs capabilities...

cda said...

I do not think Kevin is a very rare case of a soldier with writing abilities, but it depends on whether Kevin considers his main occupation was being a soldier who later became a writer, or whether he prefers to be regarded as a writer who was once a soldier. Since I have no knowledge of how his career was divided, I'll keep quiet on it.

Donald Keyhoe was once in the navy and became a writer (of fiction and non-fiction). I expect a good many writers served, if only for a short period, in the armed forces. Maybe even a few won literary prizes and also military medals. I simply don't know.

One thing I do know is that we are getting off course, yet again. Eh, Kevin? We are becoming not "victims of the wreck" but "victims of deviation from the topic".

David Rudiak said...

Paul Young said...

Just a small point, but we might be looking too deeply into why "victims" (if "victims" really is in the text, of course) would not have been used instead of "casualties"....or why "cadaver" wouldn't have been used instead of words such as "deceased" or "corpse".

After computer OCR probability testing, I now believe the first visible word at the start of the second paragraph (right after the "victims") sentence is indeed CADAVERS, in the phrase, CA)DAVERS IN THE "DISC". (The CA part is under Ramey's thumb.) Previously had AV)IATORS..., but it didn't test as well as CA)DAVERS, which was an alternate word I had previously considered.

Thus the memo reads that first VICTIMS were found with the WRECK and FORWARDED TO a T)EAM AT FORT WORTH, TEX., immediately followed by (Ramey's thumb CA)DAVERS IN THE "DISC" (Probably the number of cadaver's being forwarded is in front of cadavers, best guess THREE to bring line to left margin).

"DISC" is followed three words later by a word the computer OCR read gives good probability to as being PREP (replacing my previous word of SHIP, which tests much more poorly). Thus line reads possibly as follows "...CA)DAVERS IN THE "DISC" THEY/ARMY WILL PREP FOR.... Thus the (Ramey's thumb T)EAM AT FORT WORTH" to which THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK were being FORWARDED was one that would PREP the CADAVERS, namely a mortuary team that was going to PREPare or preserve them in some way. A possible 9-letter word under Ramey's thumb in front of T)EAM would be MORTICIAN, which would bring line to the left margin of the message. Obviously I don't have X-ray vision and have to speculate here, but the speculation is based on the full context of the wording around it, which seems to be about shipment and preparation of dead bodies.

(It also doesn't hurt to know that there was indeed a highly suspicious B29 crate shipment the next day from Roswell to Fort Worth under armed guard that crew members said was met by a mortician at Fort Worth and which the crew believed carried the dead aliens they had been hearing about from rumors at the base. See www.roswellproof.com/b29_flight_july9.html )

Context and the left margin setting the number of missing characters brings up MORTICIAN as a plausible word, instead of words of wrong length or context such as SURGICAL TEAM, CLEANUP TEAM, BASKETBALL TEAM, etc.

Also three times TEAMS or CREWS are mentioned in the message. After the first instance associated with dealing with the dead bodies is another which I believe reads CIC/TEAM, cited in the message as being the ones actually responsible for the press release from Roswell. Then at the very end of the message, in the context of how they were going to firm up the next WEATHER BALLOONS press release by using weather balloon RAWIN TEAMS/CREWS (again recommended by the CIC/TEAM). This interpretation is again backed up by the documented history of what happened afterward, namely a number of RAWIN target launches by the military with the basic story that these were what explained the recent sightings of flying saucers. See:

www.roswellproof.com/militarydebunk.html

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

cda said...

Is PREP genuinely a short form of the word PREPARE? And is it common in the US military to use such a word? And "prep the cadavers" sounds HIGHLY suspect as a phrase. "Prepare the bodies" or "prepare the corpses" sounds OK, but "prep the cadavers"?? I just don't believe it.

DR continues:

"It also doesn't hurt to know that there was indeed a highly suspicious B29 crate shipment the next day from Roswell to Fort Worth under armed guard that crew members said was met by a mortician at Fort Worth and which the crew believed carried the dead aliens they had been hearing about from rumors at the base."

Did DR learn of this "highly suspicious B-29 crate" being met by a mortician at Fort Worth BEFORE he miraculously deciphered the word 'MORTICIAN' in the Ramey memo, or did he learn of it afterwards? Was it a 'plausible' word because a supposed witness suggested it previously or not? Also why has the B-29 crate become "highly suspicious"? Don't B-29s usually carry crates, boxes and all manner of military baggage? Anything can be 'suspicious' if you want it to be, particularly if it is second-hand testimony from someone decades afterwards.

We can argue this endlessly and get nowhere. And after this new super high-tech analysis, we shall still be precisely nowhere. Meanwhile, all the real documentation, still eludes us. DR will say it is still in top secret vaults. Kevin and others will probably say the same. Pure fantasy.

Where do you think the real documentation is, Nitram? Any ideas?

Lance said...

"And after this new super high-tech analysis, we shall still be precisely nowhere."

Just to be clear. There is no super high-tech analysis going on right now as far as I am aware.

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.

What I am hoping is that the wider dissemination of the new scans might spark a connection with someone who has some expertise or knowledge that could get a non-fantasist result. And CDA, I do think there is the possibility that we MIGHT learn something from an accurate decipherment.

I have encouraged (and tried to help) those involved to make that happen.

Lance



Nitram Ang said...

CDA wrote:

"Why say 'just yet'? Do you REALLY expect it to happen, ever?"

Well yes, I hope one day we can read the memo and have universal agreement on what it says.

"Where do you think the real documentation is, Nitram? Any ideas?"

No I simply don't know where it is and like Don Maor, I am not a psychic.

David Rudiak said...

CDA blathered: (1 of 2)
Is PREP genuinely a short form of the word PREPARE?

Yes, absolutely. Try using something called Google and look it up; you will get, e.g.,

PREP: informal
Verb 1. prepare (something); make ready. "scores of volunteers help prep the food"; prepare oneself for an event. "to prep for his role he trimmed his unruly locks"
Noun: preparation. "I do the prep"


Commonly used, e.g., in college prep courses, military prep schools, mortuary prep rooms (where bodies are prepared for burial), prepping for a test. Next question..

And is it common in the US military to use such a word?

Don't have a clue. But it is a COMMON English abbreviated form for "preparation". I suspect even military generals would be aware of it, including in the mortuary context of "prepping" a body.

And "prep the cadavers" sounds HIGHLY suspect as a phrase. "Prepare the bodies" or "prepare the corpses" sounds OK, but "prep the cadavers"?? I just don't believe it.

You're as bad as Brian Bell making up nonexistent quotes. Try reading what I ACTUALLY wrote, the phrase reading along the lines of "CADAVERS IN THE "DISC" THEY/ARMY WILL PREP FOR". There is zero difference between saying "cadaver" prepping vs. "corpse" prepping; the words are synonyms. Sheesh!

DR continues:

"It also doesn't hurt to know that there was indeed a highly suspicious B29 crate shipment the next day from Roswell to Fort Worth under armed guard that crew members said was met by a mortician at Fort Worth and which the crew believed carried the dead aliens they had been hearing about from rumors at the base."

Did DR learn of this "highly suspicious B-29 crate" being met by a mortician at Fort Worth BEFORE he miraculously deciphered the word 'MORTICIAN' in the Ramey memo, or did he learn of it afterwards?


First of all, the word was not "deciphered" but a best-guess (since it is invisible under Ramey's thumb) based on context and word length.

Next, did you bother to read the link to my website where I have the testimony of those involved? Here's the link again (try reading it first before planting your foot firmly in mouth):

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/b29_flight_july9.html

E.g., Sgt. Robert Slusher's testimony about this flight has been known for over 20 years years, and his affidavit from 1994 is on my web page, from your favorite Roswell debunking author Karl Pflock. Also there is the testimony of Ernest Lloyd Thompson, dating back to 1989 (originally under the pseudonym of "Tim"), both men giving almost identical stories of the flight. I first proposed that the memo was speaking of the body flight around 2001 or 2002. Yes, I was well aware of the testimony.

Was it a 'plausible' word because a supposed witness suggested it previously or not?

Nothing "supposed" about the witnesses. It is "plausible" because: 1) It follows immediately after "the victims of the wreck" being "forwarded" to a "team at Fort Worth" sentence, thus a natural continuation of the thought; 2) the letters that can be seen match well with the word CA)DAVERS (also given a "thumbs up" by the computer OCR read, not just me seeing things); matches eyewitness testimony of such a body shipment (Lloyd Thompson even had his old flight log recording the flight).

David Rudiak said...

(2 of 2)
Also why has the B-29 crate become "highly suspicious"? Don't B-29s usually carry crates, boxes and all manner of military baggage?

They are bombers (hence the "B" in B-29) and do NOT normally carry crates, which is what cargo planes are for (hence the "C" in C47 or C54). So this alone was highly unusual.

The other unusual aspects were:
1) crate was chained to the plane, so they couldn't jettison it in an emergency--it would go down with the ship;
2) it was surrounded by an armed guard of officers;
3) it flew at an unusually low altitude because of the guards in the unpressurized bomb bay and perhaps because of the contents;
4) Lloyd Thompson recognized one of the security detail as actually being a doctor from the base hospital who had previously treated him;
5) it was greeted at Fort Worth by a mortician known to one of the crew members, who had gone to school with him;
6) when they got back to Roswell they were debriefed, told it was the general's furniture, but not to talk about it.
7) they had heard rumors before the flight about the saucer crash and of alien bodies being recovered, and surmised, based on the peculiar circumstances, that the crate contained the bodies.
8) the crate was loaded under under unusually extreme security, even greater than for an A-bomb. Another eyewitness, Cpl. William Quigley spoke of being pressed into guard duty (something he never did before or since), ordered to patrol inside a tunnel formed by a double row of canvas curtains surrounding the loading bay (instead of the usual single curtain around the loading of an A-bomb), thus unable to see either inside or outside, ordered to shoot to kill if anyone unauthorized tried to enter, made to sign a security oath afterward, something he never had to do ever again for anything else.

Anything can be 'suspicious' if you want it to be, particularly if it is second-hand testimony from someone decades afterwards.

The testimony is ALL first-hand. All the witnesses were there at the loading and/or on the flight. It was the eye witnesses, not me, who all commented on the flight being highly unusual. No doubt Stan Friedman got to them all first and planted the testimony in their heads. Go back to sleep now Christopher.

Paul Young said...

I'm surprised at the negativity here targeted at David Rudiak's efforts to read this document.
As Lance himself mentioned earlier on in this thread, the big problem is the low resolution of the Ramey photo, not a blurring problem, as that which was overcome by the RSRG during the Roswell slides fiasco.
Therefore, if the Ramey Memo is ever going to be figured out, then DR's method of building probable words/phrases/sentences around the words that are obviously there, seems,to my mind, the ONLY way forward.
While I'd agree that "viewing" is equally feasible to "victims" on the face of it...if DR is correct in reading ?CA? DAVERS (and I expect he is)...then that would certainly swing it toward "victims".
Sadly, there seems to be no miracle software on the horizon that will let us read this low resolution snap clearly.
As the saying goes..."You can't polish a turd"
So instead of mocking the man, I'd applaud him for getting as far as he's got with the poor quality snap he's been trying to read.

Don Maor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don Maor said...

Paul, in David's website, there is a zoom-in analysis of the word in conflict. The analysis is from 2009, I think.

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

For me, the last and penultimate letters are more likely to be "MS" than "NG". Such a zoom-in or close-up can be checked by anyone, and that's where Lance flees like a chicken.

Brian Bell said...

Once again Rudiak uses his creative imagination to further his case when he writes:

"The testimony is ALL first-hand. All the witnesses were there at the loading and/or on the flight. It was the eye witnesses, not me, who all commented on the flight being highly unusual."

Such a load of gibberish and easily contradicted by info on his own website:

"A more recent second-hand witness was Blanche Wahnee, daughter of top-level security officer Meyers Washnee, identifying her father as one of the security officers that guarded the crate in the bomb-bay."

Rudiak maybe you should study your own website before making sweeping statements about "all first hand eye witnesses".
Obviously what you're claiming isn't completely accurate. But that's probably not the first time this has happened.

And your website further states:

"There are now many witness accounts of the bodies recovered at Roswell being taken to base Hangar 84/P-3 for processing and shipment out of the base. (See, e.g., affidavit of Walter Haut and testimony of Eli Benjamin) Beverly Bean said her father Sgt. Melvin Brown specifically told her of seeing the aliens and guarding them at the hangar during the night (probably July 8/9) as they awaited shipment to Texas. (For more of Bean's testimony, see Glenn and Dennis page)."

Rudiak needs us to rely on the dubious and problematic testimony of others who are a mixture of first AND second hand testimonies with some heavy reliance on Haut's fictitious affidavit(s) and Dennis' fabricated falsities.

Sure Rudiak, I'm sure it all went down just as you imagine it. Just as you imagine it.....

Nitram Ang said...

Hi Paul

I concur with your comments. I'm also surprised and disappointed at the negativity here targeted at David Rudiak's efforts to read this document.

Sure, Lance himself mentioned the big problem is the low resolution of the Ramey photo, not a blurring problem, as that which was overcome by the RSRG during the Roswell slides fiasco.

So instead of mocking the man, I also applaud him for getting as far as he's got with the poor quality snap he's been trying to read.

Still, the negativity comes from a couple of individuals who have never assisted with trying to investigate this case - they simply create a lot of "unnecessary noise".

Regards
Nitram

David Rudiak said...

Lance “scientifically” wrote: (1 of 2)
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.

Lance, please provide us with your "science" background (like an actual physical science degree) that makes you much more of an expert then me.

Do you know what a "cross-correlation" (CC) test is? I highly doubt it. But it is one way to do computer optical character recognition (OCR) if you know the font. That is what I used and it is an extremely well-known scientific, yes SCIENTIFIC, image analysis technique to measure the degree of matching between a template and an actual image.

Basically it is a mathematical way of sweeping across the characters, pixel by pixel, row by row, and doing a character match, adding up all pixels in the image that match and subtracting all that don't, then dividing by factors such as average luminance in the character box and number of pixels in your font sample to normalize the results to come out between 1 and -1. "1" is a perfect positive match, "-1" a perfect negative match (like a white letter instead of a black one), and "0" represents no match.

E.g., lay a template "E" directly on top of an actual perfect "E" in the text you are analyzing. Let's say (simple example) there are 100 pixels within the template "E". All the matches add up to 100, divide by 100 to normalize, result +1 (perfect match).

Now do a bunch of random dots, with equal number of black and white pixels. Everything adds up to "0", or no match.

Notice that there is also a POSITION of maximum CC. Move sideways or up/from perfect match position and correlation drops. Thus part of an OCR CC program involves finding the position of MAXIMUM CC. Part of my OCR program also involved "penalizing" letters if their position of maximum CC was badly off-center in their letter box, indicating probably a spurious match.

My basic methodology was as follows:

First flattened the image of the Ramey memo using a morphing program, the purpose being to 1) Straighten all lines; 2) Make each letter box the same size (as they are in a real telex printout using non-proportional font) so the OCR cross-correlation program again knows where to "expect" letters (they should be centered in box, not between boxes, way to high or too low, etc.). 3) Remove size and shape distortion from letters due to perspective, paper curvature, folds, etc., to maximize matches between template (a highly distorted letter, even if correct, would be poorly matched).

My teletype font was lifted right from actual teletype messages of the day, and sized to the same size as the letters in the message once it was flattened and distortion-corrected. A slight Gaussian blur function was applied to the template letters to try to more closely match what happens to the photographed letters once they are blurred by lens aperture diffraction and chemical bleeding of the film emulsion.

I wrote my OCR program using OCTAVE, a free-ware MATLAB emulator that can run MATLAB programs. (MATLAB is the most popular, gold-standard programming language of the scientific world, unfortunately costing around $5000 for the works, including image-processing package, which is why I didn’t use it.)

I then ran the OCR program, computing cross-correlation coefficients for each template letter against actual text. This had to be done for only a few words at a time due to the high computational demands. (It takes over half a billion computations PER LETTER using a 40x80 pixel letter box. Thus testing the phrase AND THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK takes roughly 15-20 billion calculations and I typically had to wait a minute or two each time I ran the program.)

David Rudiak said...

(2 of 2)
Letters were ranked by the program by maximum correlation for both raw results and after letters were "penalized" for bad placement. Various proposed words were also run by the program and used to rank words by average letter ranking and average correlation of the leters. This is my scientific, yes SCIENTIFIC, fully repeatable basis for saying one word is more probable than another, based on computer ranking.

I certainly did NOT know ahead of time what the results would be. Mostly my previous readings were given good marks in probability by the computer rankings, but I had to reevaluate some of my words that were given bad marks, a process that is still going on.

The program was first tested on control words that EVERYBODY agrees are there, such as WEATHER BALLOONS (WB) and AT FORT WORTH, TEX. (AFWT) E.g., every letter in WEATHER was ranked #1 or #2 (after penalizing other letters that were not well-centered), except for the "H" which ranked only #13 (which still moved up from #15 after penalizing other letters). In most cases, the penalizing algorithm worked like it was supposed to, moving up letters in ranking that we all know are there, and demoting others that we know aren't there. So the average ranking of WEATHER letters before penalization was 4.3, but 3.0 afterward. If you toss out the outlier letter "H", the average rank was 1.3, the best word in the message. BALLOONS had 3 of 4 letters move up in rank (two to #1, one to #3). The exception was the second "O" which dropped from #8 to #19, which resulted in the average word rank dropping slightly from 5.4 to 5.6. Toss out the outlying bad "O" and the average rank was 3.7. Do this for the phrase WB, and the average letter rank was 2.6.

Do the same thing for AFWT and the average letter rank is 3.1. This gives you some idea of what to expect from good matches to words and short phrases in the Ramey memo. Most of the letters rank in the top quartile (top 6) and average in the 3 to 4 range.

Now let's compare to various proposed words for the "VICTIMS" word. VICTIMS has 6 of 7 letters in the top 5 letters, BY FAR the BEST of any proposed word. (The only low-ranking letter was the unreadable 4th one.) The average letter rank (after kicking out 4th letter outlier) is 2.8, right in the range of the unanimous WB and AFWT (after similarly tossing out outliers).

In contrast, Lance's VIEWING, with 3 letters in common (V, I, I), only 4 of 7 are in top 5 and the average is 7.0 (even after throwing out #4 letter). If you go letter by letter for the different letters, "C" in VICTIMS is #5 vs. "E" in VIEWING at #21, M is #2 vs. N #5, "S" is #1 vs. G at #7. According to the computer-rated rankings, VIEWING is a far inferior, much less probable word than VICTIMS (the WORST of any proposed word).

REMAINS is similarly poor, averaging only 5.8 and another proposed word FINDING is only slightly better at 5.2. If you look at just the first letter, "V" is #2, whereas "F" is only #11 and "R" is #8.

I have also thrown in similar contextual nonsense words as controls: VIRGINS and VIOLINS. VIRGINS is 4.7 and VIOLINS is 6.2. Thus the two nonsense words test as well or better than the proposed alternate sensible prosaic words to VICTIMS. VICTIMS is the hands-down winner here.

Using computer ratings gets around the problem of possible reader bias, which, believe it or not, Lance, also affects debunkers like you in spades.

Now maybe Lance can tell us IN DETAIL about his "non-madeup" "non-reeking", "non-crank", fully objective, fully repeatable "science" that enables him to know with such certainty that his VIEWING is every bit as viable as VICTIMS. How about it Lance? Show us how your far superior "science" works? Give it to me right between the eyes! I’m waiting Lance. Lance? Earth to Lance...

Jim Bender said...

Messing around with the scan I am very confident that the memo states "victims of the wreck versus "remains of the wreck"

working on the signature next

Brian Bell said...

I don't think anyone would be poking fun of Rudiak of he actually presented an unbiased and neutral position on the findings.

He's too busy trying to read into the memo stuff that backs his ET hypothesis.

Paul Young said...

Brian Bell said..."I don't think anyone would be poking fun of Rudiak of he actually presented an unbiased and neutral position on the findings.
He's too busy trying to read into the memo stuff that backs his ET hypothesis."


Brian, did you even bother to read DR's last two entries on this thread?
I'm amazed at your bitterness!
Maybe, if you put just 5% of the effort that DR has into attempting to read the memo, then you just might gain a tiny bit of respect around here. Instead, you come across as some muppet with a fetish for shooting themselves in the foot.
With this continuous sniping from the sidelines, without any real input, you're sounding like a classic chatroom troll as opposed to a genuine sceptic.

Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

You mean the usual 2 or 3 part monologues about why everything adds up to an ET explanation? Sure, and what did his last post convey?

The memo text he decipheted equals confirmation of witness testimony of a "strange" B29 flight carrying a classified crate filled with dead aliens and saucer parts.

I might ask what are you specifically doing to interpret the text? Nitram? Don?

Lance said...

David's unpublished experiments make it clear that he has gone to a lot of trouble. But it may not be effort that takes us anywhere. It is obvious that the text remains unreadable (why mention the top 5 letters? Why not #1?). Please list for us David, the gibberish that your program suggests is the "best".

I am not a scientist, but I remind folks here of the difference between this supposed solution and the one we saw with the Roswell slides. In that endeavor, there was virtually no doubt after our publication. With David's work, the doubt is BUILT IN to the results already but then you have to add in his unseemly bias in which he supports every conclusion with some dubious Roswell testimony, etc. We have no way of knowing just how much this bias has crept into the work above. For instance, David talks about using a morphing program to create a flat version of the text (unpublished) aligning into a grid. The very act of doing this may introduce bias as David decides where one letter ends and another begins according to his already fully formed bias towards certain results. That is just one example.

Additionally, as I have mentioned previously, the full memo text Rudiak peddles sounds ridiculous. It sounds much less like real English than the fevered dreams of a known Roswell diehard.

I should also say that while VICTIMS is something I have no problem admitting as a possibility (I can see it if I look at the tea leaves just right) some of the other words don't look AT ALL like the proposed text. WRECK, for instance, requires more kindness that even I am willing to allow.

In my opinion, David has poisoned the well by very unscientifically going well beyond his results mentioned above and insisting that his results are proven (look at his nutty site sometime to see how he talks about this stuff).

In the end, none of that really matters because we are talking about probability. And the truth doesn't always conform to probability.

It is ironic that Kevin's site itself give evidence as to why Rudiak's approach is not likely to be helpful. In the CAPTCHA check we use to post messages here, we must prove that we are human by sometimes looking at text (or lately pictures), The text used is MUCH clearer than the Ramey stuff. And yet apparently machine based reading still isn't good enough to break it. The human eye is still the gold standard.

As usual the paranormal hides amongst castles seen in clouds. In the newest scans, I think VIEWING.has become a better contender. But Rudiak asks who are we gonna believe, him, a known Roswell hack with a proven record of overstating the evidence in favor of his worship of flying saucers....

...or our own lying eyes?

Lance

Paul Young said...

Brian Bell asked..."I might ask what are you specifically doing to interpret the text?"


Nothing! Nothing at all...which is why I tend not to idle away my time (as you seemingly do) being hyper-critical towards those who do, in fact, put great effort toward the almost thankless task of trying to make sense of this (potentially important) memo.
Whilst people, like KR and DR, spend their time constructively trying to get enhanced scans of the negative... you seemingly are only interested in throwing stones at them from the comforts of your desktop.

It's almost as if you don't want a solution to be found!
(That wouldn't do, would it!...You'd have to find a new website to troll.)

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

Pointing out the ridiculous assumptions or even the bias of a certain researcher is hardly inappropriate.

If there were balance at play, that researcher wouldn't post three-part defensive explanations for why everything in the text indicates bodies of aliens were found.

cda said...

DR told me to go back to sleep, so I have decided to do just that. On the lines of Rip Van Winkle.

So long, folks. It was fun while it lasted.

Nitram Ang said...

Hi Paul

Thanks for your posting - I agree with you of course, it is most unfortunate that a couple of people are only interested in throwing stones at David & Kevin from the comforts of their desktops.

It's because they don't want a solution to be found for some unknown reason.

Don;t let their criticisms get you down, hopefully one day we will get the answer.

Regards
Nitram

Brian Bell said...

Nitram wrote:

"...throwing stones at David & Kevin from the comforts of their desktops."

You mean to say when you "throw stones" they don't come from your desktop? You're not using a computer of any kind, or handheld device, so just how do you get your stones thrown? Mental telepathy?

Furthermore, aren't KR and DR working at their desks on this analysis too?

Very confusing your statement Nitram (or whomever you really are).

Jim Bender said...

And lance you think you are unbiased?????? lololool hahahaah OMG just fell out of my chair

You and BB are like modern day Philip Klass's with debunk/skeptic on the brain with your heads stuck in the sand.

99.9% of your posts make absolutely 0 sense. 0

The memo is good proof and is heading in the right direction proving that the Roswell incident of 1947 was not a weather balloon flown by crash dummies but a spectacular crash of a craft from unknown origins and then followed by the LARGEST COVER UP IN USA history. We are excited for more memo results obviously not from your work lance.
It is a known fact the demise of the UFO skeptic/debunker is coming!!!! Your glory days are soon to end

500 billion galaxies and an average of 150 billion stars per galaxy (also our solar system is young 4.5 billion years old) and now latest discovery of multiple universes, your STAGE TIME is almost over.

Try watching the newly released documentary "PARTICLE FEVER" The movie might shake you free from your CAVEMAN mentality.

Brian Bell said...

@ Jim Bender

Jim, seriously? I'm beginning to wonder what sort of medication you're taking on or off prescription.

You said:

"The memo is good proof and is heading in the right direction proving that the Roswell incident of 1947 was not a weather balloon flown by crash dummies but a spectacular crash of a craft from unknown origins and then followed by the LARGEST COVER UP IN USA history. We are excited for more memo results obviously not from your work lance."

What?? A "spectacular crash".

Oh boy.

Nitram Ang said...

Jim Bender wrote:

"Messing around with the scan I am very confident that the memo states "victims of the wreck versus "remains of the wreck"

working on the signature next"

Thanks Jim - Can we see the evidence or working to support your claims above please?

I'm not trying to get into an argument but if your have some supporting documentation to support a possible interpretation I'm certain that David & Kevin would be delighted to see this.

Look forward to your reply.

Regards
Nitram

Jim Bender said...

Hi

I just used an editing software from Windows 8.1

1) right click on the image
2) click on inspect element
3)There are many adjustments from here and I am trying to duplicate what I did the other night, will let you know the additional steps from here but need more time, but I could count the letters and you can make out many of the letters even though they were somewhat blurred. with the common eye.

Jim Bender said...

click on emulation

then landscape and select your pixel setting

Jim Bender said...

You can clearly see "the victims" in the Portrait setting 4.3 800 x 480. I have it up on my 60 inch Samsung HD tv set.

I am still working with it as well as with the custom setting

David Rudiak said...

Lance commented idiotically: (1 of 2)
We have no way of knowing just how much this bias has crept into the work above. David talks about using a morphing program to create a flat version of the text (unpublished) aligning into a grid. The very act of doing this may introduce bias as David decides where one letter ends and another begins according to his already fully formed bias towards certain results. That is just one example.

First, I don’t "decide” “where one letter ends and another begins”. The message itself “decides” that where you can clearly see the letters (and spaces between words). The FACT that each letter occupies the same letter box space (nonproportional font) “decides” that. The FACT that as a result, columns of text necessarily lines up “decides” that. The FACT that text lines must necessarily be in straight and horizontal helps “decide” that. The FACT that the page itself is necessarily rectangular helps “decide” that.

The only exceptions here is where the shadow or curvature/parallax is extreme making it difficult to distinguish exactly where lines, words, and letters may be, but this has little or no effect on the critical parts of the message, such as “the victims of the wreck”, “Ramey”, “in the ‘disc’”, “at Roswell”, “weather balloons”, etc., which are right out in the open. No need to “guess” where the letters are or how many there are in the word.

What should a morphing program do to flatten the Ramey memo with all its curves and folds and perspective distortion? Ideally, it should get rid of all of these. This is actually a straightforward, geometric process almost totally OBJECTIVE (except where it is hard to see the letters for reasons just mentioned) that Lance has to twist into some sort of "bias" that somehow (doesn’t explain exactly how) leads “towards certain results".

Morphing was done in the following way: The morphing program was Abrosoft FantaMorph v.5, an inexpensive morphing program. To do the morph, you place a morphing dot on the target sheet (described below) and the corresponding dot on the Ramey message. Hundreds of such dots were used to fully flatten the memo. (This takes many hours to do.) So, e.g., obvious corresponding points in the two images are the four visible corners of the page (try to “bias” that), the vertical center of the page where there is a vertical fol, the edges of the paper, corresponding spaces between words, and so on. No “bias” involved here, certainly nothing that leads to “certain results”,

I created a clear-copy, text version of the Ramey memo as a target image to morph to. The memo's actual expected text isn't needed. One could, e.g., place markers like "X" with the same letter counts as the Ramey memo words separated by the usually obvious spaces between the words. To help with creating a true rectangular grid at the end of the morph, I used the plus sign "+" in all the spaces, including the blank lines between text lines. Lining up columns of text in the original memo image plus interpolating where blank lines would be enables another gridwork of “+” marks to be placed in the blank areas of the message.

Again, one advantage of an impact printer telex message in doing this work is that all letters occupy the same amount of space on the paper (nonproportional font). The letter "I" has the same size letter box as a wide letter like "W" and columns of letters on different lines MUST line up with one another. Thus, one doesn’t have to guess where a letter should be or the spacing between letters. (Oops, all that Lance imaginary “bias” missing again.)

At the end of the ideal morph, the Ramey memo must end up with STRAIGHT horizontal text lines with equal spacing between lines, true square corners with straight vertical and horizontal edges to the paper, text columns lined up straight in true vertical, spaces matching spaces, and text ending up with true teletype font proportions. Again, "bias" has NOTHING to do with it.

David Rudiak said...

2 of 2
At the end of the ideal morph, the Ramey memo must end up with STRAIGHT horizontal text lines with equal spacing between lines, true square corners with straight vertical and horizontal edges to the paper, text columns lined up straight in true vertical, spaces matching spaces, and text ending up with true teletype font proportions. Again, "bias" has NOTHING to do with it.

The are various options in the morphing, such as morphing from curled up Ramey photo or curled clear text target to flattened one or vice versa, or going from curled/flat Ramey memo to curled/flat clear text target (or vice versa), in steps so that movie can be made.

The memo was flattened in preparation for a computer OCR read so that the lines of text were straight, the text lined up in equally spaced columns as it should, distortion of letters was removed, and letters were all in equal sized letter boxes of correct teletype proportions. This NEEDS to be done for the OCR method I used, cross correlation between true teletype font and the message, which requires the template font characters match the size and shape of text in the image and have equal size, equally spaced letter boxes.

I'm writing in detail in how I have approached dealing with the difficulties of reading the message because this is how a scientific paper is written, spelling out one's methodology so that other SERIOUS and COMPETENT researchers can REPEAT it IF THEY ARE INTERESTED. (Does Lance get that I can’t force anyone else to spend the lengthy amount of time—probably ~200 hours—to repeat what I did?) First I flattened the memo, then I used cross-correlation to test how well various reads of the memo ranked in probability. This is a thoroughly SCIENTIFIC way of testing reads.

In this way, it is possible to test hypotheses of what is in the message, such as whether the message LIKELY reads VICTIMS or VIEWING or REMAINS or FINDING. Lance favors VIEWING and is just pissed that using this truly SCIENTIFC test, VIEWING is easily the WORST word of the bunch (average letter rank 7.0) while VICTIMS is far and away the BEST (average letter rank 2.8). That is just the way it came out, not because the computer was trying to please me and diss Lance.

Since this true scientific test doesn't back up Lance's own deeply held personal biases (in LanceFantasyWorld, only "believers" can be biased, not pseudoskeptics like himself), he lashes out at me with his usual vindictive character assassination, not having anything else to say. (Thus I was a “crank” supposedly operating outside my expertise, my “science” (in “scare quotes”) was “made-up”, it “reeked”, etc., etc.)

I then challenged Lance to spell out HIS "scientific" credentials and methods for reading the message. Does anyone see any "science" in Lance's reply? His "science" amounts to "because Lance thinks so" and "anything Rudiak says is wrong and biased."

I tried to cooperate with Lance by sharing some of our recently scanned images. He promised a spirit of further cooperation and no more insults. But Lance can’t seem to restrain himself for 5 minutes before lashing out again in his usual, very insulting way. His commentary is also very revealing about Lance's obvious deep ignorance of the very things he feels free to comment about and criticize me on. I’m not the deeply biased or unscientific one here.

Don Maor said...

Lance scribbled:

"The very act of doing this may introduce bias as David decides where one letter ends and another begins according to his already fully formed bias towards certain results. That is just one example."

Where should the letters begin, then, in order to read VIEWING?

On the other hand, it seems that the program made by David is capable of finding the location of maximum correlation for a given letter. So it seems that you are WRONG when saying that it is all about David choosing a strict position.


Additionally, as I have mentioned previously, the full memo text Rudiak peddles sounds ridiculous. It sounds much less like real English than the fevered dreams of a known Roswell diehard.

This is the typical irrelevant and not decisive argument that has been repeated time and time again, until tiredness, by Lance. Lance continues to blissfully ignore that the message is clearly incomplete, that the clearest paragraph is interrupted in every line by the finger of Ramey and that some words are extremely difficult to read. This implies that the message will obviously be hard to follow.

Lance fails to notice (because to my surprise Lance is NOT really smart) that if David were really dreaming up things, he would have deciphered a much clearer message, much more pallatable to logic. Instead of it, David reads what he can, not what he dreams, and that explains the seemingly incoherence sometimes.

One can be pretty sure that if the message deciphered by David, where more coherent, Lance would be quarreling that it is just too good to be true. Negativist cranks always will find something to moan about.

In the end, none of that really matters because we are talking about probability. And the truth doesn't always conform to probability.

Of course, Lance is a philosopher, deep thinker, too.

In the CAPTCHA check we use to post messages here, we must prove that we are human by sometimes looking at text (or lately pictures), The text used is MUCH clearer than the Ramey stuff. And yet apparently machine based reading still isn't good enough to break it. The human eye is still the gold standard.

Yes Lance, the eye is a great organ, and that is why UFOs are generally real. Yes, thousands of EYE witnesses in the world. My eye (gold standard) also read VICTIMS.

Jim Bender said...

Great work david

don't waste your time with Lance, I bet you he has spent ZERO time on the memo, between lance, bb and Gille we have wanna be Philip Klass's here with their heads in the sand and the cave man mentality.
I would move and expect nothing from them

Lance said...

David,

Where can one see your flattened image?

Lance

Lance said...

"if David were really dreaming up things, he would have deciphered a much clearer message, much more pallatable to logic."

Thanks Don for admitting that David's text isn't "pallatable [sic] to logic".

I certainly agree. His force-fed conspiracy words may match the letter count but not much more.

Lance

Nitram Ang said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nitram Ang said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don Maor said...

Lance said:

Thanks Don for admitting that David's text isn't "pallatable [sic] to logic".
I certainly agree. His force-fed conspiracy words may match the letter count but not much more."


Come on Lance, in this case by 'logic' I was referring to the wording, which in this specific case one can not expect that the reading will be that smooth. On the contrary, if it were too smooth, it would be suspicious.

Regarding the bad writing of "palatable" I am not a native english speaker, sorry all.

Nitram Ang said...

Lance

As discussed previously - I would prefer if you didn't attack David about his interpretation of the memo - for goodness sake even you have conceded that he "could" be right.

Lance, David wrote (and I have tweaked below):

We (DR, KR and myself) have cooperated with Lance by sharing some of our recently scanned images. I understand Lance promised a spirit of further cooperation and no more insults. Lance - your recent posts are quite insulting to David who has done so much good work - even if he is quite set in his ways regarding his conclusions. Your commentary Lance is also revealing about Lance's ignorance of the very things he feels free to comment about and criticize David on.

You might correctly argue that I have been insulting about a couple of skeptics - however, they are clueless and have done no work to advance the cause...

Don wrote:

"if David were really dreaming up things, he would have deciphered a much clearer message, much more pallatable to logic."

Yes Lance - the English is a bit strange I agree - however if David were so bias and dishonest surely he would be claiming that the words is "ALLIENS" not "VICTIMS" (they are both "7 letter words" and end with an "S")

So maybe you can cut David a bit of slack for now please Lance.

Jim

You forgot to mention CDA in your previous posting about "Philip Klass wannabes"

Regards
Nitram

Nitram Ang said...


Hi Jim

you wrote "don't waste your time with Lance, I bet you he has spent ZERO time on the memo..."

Having criticized Lance for his earlier comments about one researcher it would be a bit dishonest of me if I didn't state for the record that Lance too has done some work in relation to the memo. This includes looking at dozens of photos and analysis compiled by the team in relation to the recent scans made earlier this year of the Ramey memo.

I look forward to seeing what he and his people come back to us with.

Regards
Nitram

Steve Sawyer said...

Part 1 of 2:

Well, here we are at well over a hundred comments in this thread alone, and it seems no consensus has been (or ever will be) achieved about what the Ramey memo, even in part, actually says.

I kind of expected this, given that the text of the memo is so damn difficult to clarify. I also don't think the pixelation "noise overlay" problem can be resolved, either, unless some even newer scanning tech combined with more sophisticated alphanumerical character-shape modeling software becomes available. And even then...

If these newest scans only reveal this moderately-improved level of detail (that is, what's apparent in the size shown in this and KR's latest blog post -- it would be very nice if someone took copies of the latest scans, of the two photos that show only the memo part, blew them up with proper contrast enhancement, and posted them online for others to view, with proper copyright notice included), it would seem the problem is basically unresolvable at present.

If someone were to hold a loaded gun to my head, and ask me what I can perceive in the scans I've examined (on DR's site, here, and elsewhere online), I'd have to say "VICTIMS" is more likely than "VIEWING" based on the relevant (slightly discernible) letter shapes composing either word. It also appears to me that "DISC" (in quotes) is also the most probable word in that part of the memo, but that's only part of the real problem that underlies the nature of the discussion here.

First, even if the few words above are correct (and that's not certain), they don't tell us a whole lot. It's the context of the entire memo where those words might be discerned that's critical, as to the memo's meaning in actuality, and I don't see how that many more words can be derived from the current process to provide much more confirmed text and thus the actual purpose / meaning / significance of the memo itself as a whole.

I suspect this extraordinarily liminal issue will remain highly ambiguous, and inherently subject to bias or subjective judgement (either way), regardless of what current or future scans and deciphering software processes and algorithms are applied, primarily due to the poor quality of the original photo negatives involved (in regard to the very small "memo portion" of the negs).

But then, second, there are the issues of provenance of the memo: where did it come from -- was it given to Ramey or was it written by Ramey? And how and why? Nobody seems to truly know.

Third, how do we judge just how significant the memo is in relation to the overall question of what really happened in early July of 1947 near Roswell? While the term VICTIMS is very provocative, again, that's subject to individual interpretation, unfortunately.

Even if we can specifically reject Mogul flight #4 as being the source of the debris found on the Foster ranch by Mack Brazel, which I concur with, how does one explain the nature of the debris personally described by Brazel in the initial, contemporaneous 1947 interviews?

It would seem prosaic, unless those interviews were conducted after Brazel might have been prepped or "persuaded" by the military to describe them as mundane balloon debris of some kind, as part of a deliberate ploy, but where is the real evidence for that more esoteric scenario?

Or, the "second site," which some posit was the actual basis for the Haut press release, not what Brazel found? And, where is the evidence for that "second site"? Yet again, very ambiguous.

These are all elements of the nearly intractable dilemma.

Steve Sawyer said...

Part 2 of 2:

Of course, if the phrase "VICTIMS OF THE WRECK" could be determined as genuine, that alone would tip the balance against either Mogul, or other possible balloon debris, as being a legit explanation for "Roswell" being simply a "non-event" from which decades-old memories, and other only circumstantial indicators remain, and which have now become spun, confabulated, and synthesized into a modern myth, of sorts. But even that VICTIMS phrase doesn't establish Roswell as ET, either. There are other alternate, human-originated scenarios possible.

But, the thing that occurs to me is that there is still a need for a kind of intensive "meta-review" of all that has proceeded about Roswell, in order for the volumes of chaff to be better separated from the possible residue of wheat about this entire affair and debate, combined with some kind of skeptical "peer review" process to get any closer to the truth and achieve some kind of progress, if that's even possible this long after the incident, whatever it was.

That, however, in turn begs the question of what biases might be held by whomever might be involved in such a "meta-level" reconsideration and review of all prior Roswell "evidence" -- perhaps a combined effort of some kind by both the "pro-Roswell" advocates and the "anti-Roswell" skeptics under some mutually agreed to "contract" or agreement could be developed, but I have serious doubts both sides could even (or ever) agree on acceptable terms for any effort like that, since "Roswell" has become a kind of belief-driven ad hominem war, which is both revealing and sad. Very disheartening.

So, in conclusion, it seems for now and the forseeable future, "the Roswell incident" will remain unresolved and possibly cannot be resolved, given all the questionable data available, the difficulties as to how it could be "re-vetted," the amount of time passed, and the partisan, vested interests and beliefs of the diametrically-opposed sides involved.

However, "ufology" and the essential question of whether any reports, parallel sensor recordings, or other data about the UFO phenomenon, and the penultimate question of whether any UFO incident constitutes evidence of any kind of advanced non-human intelligence (whether ETH, IDH, CTH, etc. as to origins) being involved, is not and should not be dependent on any one case, no matter how famous, like Roswell.

The evidence for a still unknown phenomenon, suggestive at least of some kind of non-human intelligence being involved in some relatively rare cases, as Vallee has said so many times now, resides in the overall historical patterns and evolution of patterns over time in terms of observed shapes, colors, radar-tracking, mutability and particularly motion or "behavior," especially when "reactive" or interacting with witnesses (like military pilot jet fighter pursuits, for example) over the post-modern era of the UFO phenomenon since WWII. That is what is most important to remember: the historical matrix of co-evolving patterns of display.

Something is going on, but we just cannot agree as yet what it is.

And probably never will.

Jim Bender said...

Steve S, great posts, what about the potential for a bomb shell release of government documents regarding the incident?

I would never count that possibility out

Steve Sawyer said...

@JB:

"...what about the potential for a bomb shell release of government documents regarding the incident?"

No, I guess the "potential" or "possibility" cannot be absolutely ruled out, but my gut feeling is that there will never be any overt or formal release of such documentation in my lifetime, if it even still exists in government hands, by any element of the U.S. government for various reasons, some of which may be well-founded.

I'm referring obliquely to certain institutional needs / precedents and potentially disruptive psychological / societal consequences of any such release.

I just don't see "disclosure" happening. If, on the other hand, you're referring to some "Edward Snowden"-like whistleblower leak, again that's "possible" but I think that's also quite unlikely.

You are presuming there may be such highly-classified documentation, based on the premise that Roswell was ET.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I personally have no idea if that might be the case or not, so I don't see much point in my speculating beyond that.

Jim Bender said...

Sure thing you must have missed the Guy Hottel memo, and yes it was released form the government

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2013/march/ufos-and-the-guy-hottel-memo/image/guy-hottel-memo-1950


And don't say this is a fabricated document.

The Roswell incident of 1947 was always stay in the population's mind until it is proven likewise, All polls show a majority of the population BELIEVES cover up!!!!!!!!!

Steve Sawyer said...

No, Jim, I am familiar with the Hottel memo, and it is a genuine FBI document.

But that's not really the question that should be considered -- it's the content, which was based on a fabrication.

The problem with the Hottel memo is that the content is based on what were initially second-hand, unidentified sources and, most importantly, eventually turned out to be based on a hoax that was part of a investment fraud, the infamous Silas Newton / Leo GeBauer "doodlebug" oil con (and that also led to the book "Behind the Flying Saucers" by Frank Scully).

Journalist J.P. Cahn in two early '50's True magazine articles first publicly exposed this fraud in detail.

See: http://www.ibtimes.com/fbi-hottel-memo-reveals-ufo-hoax-279533

So, the content of the memo was based on lies, and therefore worthless as any kind of legit evidence of anything other than a fairly elaborate con based on hoax.

I would also note that while an uncertain percentage of the U.S. population may have some awareness of the Roswell incident as allegedly being an ET crash, and that probably an even larger percentage (but less than a majority) think there may be some kind of UFO cover-up by the government, the critical issue is not what people may think or believe about either subject, but what can be proven by evidence.

But, I'm hesitant to say more than this about that since it's tangential and off-topic.

Jim Bender said...

Steve S.

I am sure you have heard of the top political advisor by the name of John Podesta?

He has been privy to many confidential documents during Bill Clinton's time in office (John Podesta was one of bill's top advisors)

He is now working for Hillary, and promises to blow the lid off the 1947 Roswell UFO incident if Hillary gets elected.

I will take John Podesta's opinion any day of the week over yours when the discussion is about UFO's and especially Roswell and Ramey Memo.

Making statements that Roswell and the Ramey memo is dead is completely FALSE, you never know!!!!!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-kean/john-podesta-pulling-back_b_6717872.html

Steve Sawyer said...

@ JB:

Yes, I know much about John Podesta, his role in the Clinton administration, his statements about the UFO phenomenon, and his current involvement with and advisory role in HRC's campaign, etc.

But, once again I think you misunderstand or are somewhat confused about my position, and the facts, when you said the following:

[Podesta]"...promises to blow the lid off the 1947 Roswell UFO incident if Hillary gets elected.

"I will take John Podesta's opinion any day of the week over yours when the discussion is about UFO's and especially Roswell and Ramey Memo.

"Making statements that Roswell and the Ramey memo is dead is completely FALSE..."


First, I don't think Podesta has actually said or "promises to blow the lid off the 1947 Roswell UFO incident if Hillary get elected." If you think otherwise, please supply a link here to any such direct quote or statements regarding Roswell.

What he did say was the following, in a tweet on Feb.13, 2015:

"1. Finally, my biggest failure of 2014: Once again not securing the #disclosure of the UFO files. #thetruthisstilloutthere cc: @NYTimesDowd"

See: http://huff.to/1vJMj5V and http://huff.to/1SBixwJ

Podesta is also on record as supporting the disclosure of UFO files held by the government on the basis that he advocates open government. Read the articles I provide links to.

That's really rather different than specifically what you said Podesta "promises."

Also, what makes you think Podesta, even if HRC is elected, would necessarily have access to or be in a position to do what you say? He was in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, and was unable to compel the release of any such UFO files, so what makes you think his potentially being appointed to any prospective Hillary Clinton administration will change that? I would suggest some things are not disclosed even to the President, let alone a lower-level White House staffer.

You incorrectly presume to know what I think about both Roswell and the Ramey memo, which is wrong (I do NOT think that either Roswell or the Ramey memo are "dead" -- to me Roswell and what the Ramey memo may say are still open questions worthy of continued scientific research), but please do not again erroneously mischaracterize what I think or have said about either topic.

I'm on record here and elsewhere as supporting ongoing empirical and objective investigation of both the "Roswell incident" and the current effort to decipher the Ramey memo. I hope that's now clear to you.

You see, Jim, I'm a real stickler for accuracy, honesty, and objectivity.

I suspect you may not have clearly comprehended what I've said in my comments here on KR's blog. That's OK, but you need to be more careful not to falsely presume, all right?

cda said...

Steve:

When anyone claims that something, or someone, will soon "blow the lid off" the secrecy surrounding UFOs you can be ceratin of one thing: the lid will stay firmly on.

And this is exactly what will happen with Roswell and that Ramey memo. But I go a bit further: not only will this lid stay on, but even if it was blown off there would be nothing inside.

Jim Bender said...

Steve S.

I am just questioning what you posted a short time ago(part 2 of 2) THATS ALL!!!!!!!

"So, in conclusion, it seems for now and the forseeable future, "the Roswell incident" will remain unresolved and possibly cannot be resolved, given all the questionable data available, the difficulties as to how it could be "re-vetted," the amount of time passed, and the partisan, vested interests and beliefs of the diametrically-opposed sides involved."

I just don't believe you should have made this statement. The only one who knows everything is CDA, lol

Jim Bender said...

Steve S.

The Roswell incident is similar too

Just like the JF Kennedy assassination(GOVERNMENT COVER UP), one day we will all know the truth and to this day we have been lied too (110%)!!!!!

cda said...

Jim B:

Re JFK, where did you obtain the figure of 110%?
Maybe it is 111.11% !

(The more exclamation marks you use, the weaker your argument really is).

Steve Sawyer said...

@ CDA:

"...you can be ceratin of one thing: the lid will stay firmly on."

* * *

"...not only will this lid stay on, but even if it was blown off there would be nothing inside."

Yeah, OK. Sure.

Maybe you're right. Or, maybe you're wrong.

I don't know, and try not to prognosticate the future, as it is "unwritten" and only time will tell. Or not. Who knows? Neither you or I.

Maybe I'm just overwhelmed by ineffability or bedazzled and filled with inertia at the moment. Or something... I'm just not ceratin about most things, lids and their kinetic potential, or otherwise, being an agnostic. 8^}

[hat tip to Peter Cook as Spigott]

@ JB:

I think you need to re-read the entire paragraph your (somewhat out of context) quoted excerpt from me, and the preceding ones, actually should suggest to you -- it's not about what I think or believe about Roswell, but more about what I see as the current ambiguous state of affairs regarding the Roswell situation as it is: unresolved and unproven, either way.

I wish that were not the case, but here we are, still speculating ad infinitum, in lieu of sufficient evidence or proof one way or the other. Frustrating...

Oh, and I think 100% Lee Harvey Oswald most certainly shot JFK. Conspiracy? Again, maybe -- I do not know, nor do you.

But, I'm done here. For now. Let's let others here comment. OK? Puhleeze... ;-)

KRandle said...

All -

References to the Kennedy assassination ends here. I do not wish to travel that road in this blog.