Friday, December 04, 2015

Jan Aldrich, Barry Greenwood and the Ramey Memo

Jan Aldrich seemed to be upset that we are attempting to read the Ramey memo and has likened the effort to that of the promoters of the Not Roswell Slides. I fear that he has misunderstood our mission or maybe he assigned his own beliefs to what he thinks we are doing as opposed to what we are actually doing, but the point is that this is nothing like the fiasco that is the Not Roswell Slides.

We have not expressed a point of view about what the message says… Oh, sure, David Rudiak believes that it is a classified document that might hold important information, but that is not the driving force for us. David would be delighted if we were able to validate his interpretation of the memo including the phrase, “victim of the wreck,” but we have been unable to clarify the image enough to make that call.

Jan is concerned that we won’t mention Barry Greenwood’s interpretation of part of the memo, though such a concern is unwarranted. In fact, more than six years ago, I had explored Barry’s suggestion about his reading of part of the memo. You can read that posting here:


At that time David argued passionately that Barry’s interpretation didn’t quite fit all the known facts. We have to remember that David has worked on all this extensively for many years and believes that he had established to a high degree of certainty what the memo says. There is a great deal of agreement with his analysis inside the UFO community… the problem is, as anyone who looks at the memo can see, there is ambiguity in the interpretations. If there was none, then we would be having another conversation.

Jan’s point seems to be that we’ll ignore the conflicting data pretending that it doesn’t exist. However, we have attempted to look at all the evidence, including much of what Barry has written and incorporate that in our paper as it deals with the history of the attempts to read the memo. I have, for example, explored the possibility that J. Bond Johnson, the reporter/photographer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, brought the document into Ramey’s office with him, which would make it wire service copy. David disagrees for several reasons including that while Johnson had said just this in some of his earlier interviews, he also repudiated that claim in many of his later interviews. Johnson realized that if it was wire service copy, then the importance of the memo was badly degraded but if it was a classified document, then this could be the “smoking gun.”

But here’s my point. It is true that David is quite passionate in his opinion, which doesn’t make it wrong. Jan is quite passionate in his opinion, which doesn’t make it wrong. Where Jan missed the boat is with his idea that we are attempting to recreate a Not Roswell Slides presentation that will ignore any evidence that conflicts with what Jan believes is our mission. But rather than hide the data, or obscure it with digital tricks, we have made everything available on line for those who wish to look at it. All we are attempting to do is clarify what the memo says not force an interpretation on everyone. We are attempting to solve the riddle and while no matter what we learn, there will be detractors, in the end we hope to have provided an answer for this… a true answer and not one that appeals to one end of the spectrum or the other… an answer that will resolve the issue.


35 comments:

cda said...

Kevin:

You say you want to "resolve the issue".

Which issue are you trying, or rather hoping, to resolve? Is it what the memo actually says, or is it something much higher, namely the issue of whether we are being visited by ETs?

I think you and others have already conceded that the issue of what the memo says will NOT be resolved. The most that will happen is that possibly a few more dubious words may be deciphered (but will still be disputed) but that is all. The memo itself (unless it miraculously turns up in a top secret archive) is forever beyond decipherment.

Consequently your idea that the issue of the Ramey memo will be resolved is a pipe dream. Just as is the idea of an ET visit to earth in July 1947.

And if the former is not resolved (which it won't be), you and others will still be free to believe and promote the latter.

KRandle said...

Really CDA?

By resolve I mean read the memo with the same degree of accuracy that was had with the placard in the Not Roswell Slides. Resolve the text because we have a photograph of it and it was our hope that the latest technology would resolve the image to the point where it could be read. Once that was done we could argue about the meaning, but resolve in this case merely meant that we could read the words.

But, of course, you need to take this to an extreme, postulate a scenario that fits into your world view and reject the idea that we might be able to read the memo.

It might forever be beyond the capability to read it. It might just be beyond reach, but shouldn't we at least look? If we can read the memo, then might we just learn something... which is not to say it would prove an alien connection, only that we can read the words.

Brian Bell said...

I get the idea behind attempting further clarification of what the memo says, but as stated above Rudiak already believes it confirms an alien crash and the UFO community already agrees regardless of any further clarification.

So I can see Jan's point in that if the UFO community already believes it confirms an alien crash, I doubt any further reading is going to shift that perspective if it turns out that the memo doesn't confirm anything alien at all.

The UFO community and Rudiak will continue to promote that it does say this regardless of any outcome that indicates otherwise.

So in the end isn't the effort just an attempt to clarify for the UFO community that what it says is what they already believe it says? In which case Jan's concerns become a valid point.

Evidence that contradicts an already ingrained belief isn't likely to make a big impact for the believers.

cda said...

Brian:

If the memo contains the great information Kevin, DR and other ETHers say it does, it is very hard to believe it would have been destroyed. It would be in demand by scientists the world over, and be a historic document. There would of course be, literally, a myriad of other contemporary documents on the same matter.

So the best course of action would be, initially, to file a FOIA request for the Ramey memo. This has been done, with negative results. The conclusion seems obvious: this document contains nothing of value to science or the public and no longer exists.

Attempts to decipher it have floundered. With luck, something more MAY eventually be obtained. I predict that whatever is obtained will prove worthless as evidence for the pro-ET lobby, and the debate will continue. But until then, this scrap of paper is the only 'hardware' this lobby have to show us skeptics how wrong we are. And as you say, failure to decipher it will not cause any ETHer to change his mind in the slightest.

KRandle said...

Brian, CDA -

Please refrain from prescribing motives to me... While David does believe that the memo refers to the Roswell case and says "victims of the wreck," please quote where I have made that statement. I have said that I can see it if I look hard enough but I can also see some of the alternatives that have been offered. All you need to do is look at some of my blog postings and what I have said about this in some of my books.

The effort here was to clarify the text and not validate a point of view. It is obvious that you two have already drawn your conclusions based on your own belief structures. Or, in other words you are as guilty of being locked into your own beliefs as firmly as you accuse those at the other end of the spectrum being locked into theirs.

The effort here is to clarify for everyone, regardless of what we might learn. Evidence that contradicts any already ingrained belief by the skeptics or debunkers isn't likely to make an impact.

TheDimov said...

To me this step is the next logical step in trying to solve, or even further the Roswell case, and to *not* attempt deciphering it is just inexplicable considering the success of the Not Roswell Slides debacle. I find it incomprehensible as to why someone would say the exercise is one of futility, that is such a loser attitude it defies logic, and suggests to me one already holds a stance and doesn't want their bubbles burst - precisely the projection one is making about others.

albert said...

@cda,
"...If the memo contains the great information Kevin, DR and other ETHers say it does, it is very hard to believe it would have been destroyed. It would be in demand by scientists the world over, and be a historic document. There would of course be, literally, a myriad of other contemporary documents on the same matter.

So the best course of action would be, initially, to file a FOIA request for the Ramey memo. This has been done, with negative results. The conclusion seems obvious: this document contains nothing of value to science or the public and no longer exists. ..."

Scientists don't give a rats ass about UFOs.
Top Secret documents are routinely destroyed.
FOIA requests are routinely denied.

Your assumptions prove nothing.

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

KRandle said...

All -

Here's a question. With what agency do you file the FOIA request for the Ramey memo?

David Rudiak said...

Kevin,

You wrote: "While David does believe that the memo refers to the Roswell case and says "victims of the wreck," please quote where I have made that statement."

Please give me a plausible scenario where you can have WEATHER BALLOONS in the message (which you agree is there) while Ramey is at that very moment displaying a weather balloon while debunking the Roswell press release of a flying disc (and, yes, with "DISC" also being in the memo), and this DOESN'T have anything to do with Roswell.

Under the circumstances, why would you have any reservations about this being about Roswell?

Also please stop ascribing this being about the Roswell case as simply MY "belief" and not based on actual well-established fact and near universal (if not universal) agreement. About the only people claiming this is NOT about Roswell are the usual trolls just trying to stir up trouble and posing ridiculous scenarios about this being Ramey's sci-fi script or how do we know the message isn't in Hebrew?

Similarly for VICTIMS OF THE WRECK, that is again NOT just me (wasn't even originally proposed by me), but the strong consensus of those who have studied the memo. (Even Simon Schollum, our forensic photography expert agrees, after studying the memo and doing his image processing, which I believe actually does improve the word, including bringing out the "T" that was previously buried in noise.)

Let me AGAIN point out skeptic Ross Evan's experiment where VICTIMS was reduced to individual letters and made into Captcha's. According to Ross, the VAST majority of 2000+ origin and context ignorant readers agreed on "V", "I", "I", "M", "S". The ONLY possible English word that can fit here is VICTIMS. Again, you don't have to read every letter with with total certainty to figure out with high probability what a word is.

My computer OCR program likewise agrees VICTIMS is the standout word in letter probabilities, easily beating out alternate proposed words like REMAINS or VIEWING. It ranks right up there in letter probability with control words WEATHER BALLOONS and FORT WORTH, TEX that everybody agrees are there (again, except for the trolls).

Computers don't have emotional biases to color their outcomes. They are following an algorithm. I didn't know what the outcome would be. In some cases, the computer DIDN'T agree with me on some more ambiguous words. I am NOT inflexible here, and used the computer probabilities as a guide to do other English word searches to find words that might fit better. (E.g., where I favored WRIGHT AF instead of my alternate BOMBER WG/SQ, the computer rated BOMBER much more probable. The word after that I had as ASSESS, but the computer rates AFFIRM as much more probable.)

Yet I am being misrepresented continuously here by various people as someone who thinks I am 100% certain about the ENTIRE message, or reading strictly from a rigid bias. No I am not. I have high certainty about some parts I consider critical (VICTIMS OF THE WRECK, IN THE "DISC"), but not about other words. E.g., the last "word" at the end of the first line of the second paragraph still has me scratching my head after 15 years of study. No normal English word seems to fit, so it is probably an old, obscure military jargon acronym or abbreviation. It refers to some sort of facility where the whatever IN THE DISC is being dealt with. It is an important word, perhaps at the same level as VICTIMS, but I don't know what it is, much less being "certain" about it.

cda said...

Albert:

While scientists may not "give a rat's ass about UFOs" (to use your phrase), they most certainly do give many cats', rats', dogs' and elephants' asses about ET life elsewhere. At least astronomers, space scientists and astro-biologists do. Therefore they would certainly care a GREAT DEAL if the Ramey memo contains evidence (or proof) that such ET life has visited the earth!

You just cannot, or will not, accept that the fact that this memo was lost or destroyed (as it obviously was) is very strong evidence that it contains nothing of interest to science, or the military either.

However, I accept Kevin's argument that further attempts at decipherment may just be worthwhile. As for Top Secret documents being routinely destroyed, this rather depends on their contents, doesn't it? And of course nobody really knows, or ever will know, whether this one was top secret anyway.

Bob Koford said...

I agree that what is important regarding what this pertains to could reside in what I call the fourth line. This finishes off with the word David Rudiak mentions...and that's my point.

"[something] IN THE "DISC" MUST RUSH AWAY TO: [that word or phrase]" I see it as two letters with small space, like Ft Bliss, or St Luke type words...two letters, then a small space, then four letters, a space, and several more letters, some possible squished together in a pinch.

Point being, what in the "disc" is being moved to that someplace?

This alone should compel anyone interested to keep on it.

/Bob

KRandle said...

David -

You missed the point and it wasn't a discussion about the memo so much as it was a discussion about what certain individuals (CDA and Brian) had to say about attempts to read the memo. I was telling them that we are attempting to decipher the memo without bias being interjected into this while noting that you have clearly stated your opinion at various times with great passion. That doesn't negate your work. That was an acknowledgement that we all were aware of it.

I don't care what is revealed if we can, in fact, come to a specific conclusion. I was attempting to point out that your enthusiasm for the memo is tempered by our acknowledgement that there is not 100% agreement with what all the words are. I merely said you believed the memo to be about Roswell, which, of course, given all the circumstances and the words that are universally accepted suggests. There is always a remote possibility that there is something else going on here though I will refrain from even attempting to invent a scenario for it. The point is that if we could read the memo, we might have the answers... So, the point was, that I didn't want to draw conclusions about the memo without seeing if we could decipher it...

And the real point was that I thought it necessary to point out that we have not arrived at any conclusions as of yet though you, through your work, believe you have read much of not all of the memo... There is always a degree of interpretation in this work and we were attempting to avoid allowing the bias of one member to influence the overall work of the rest of us.

albert said...

@cda,
I wasn't talking about "ET life elsewhere": I was talking about UFOs.

It' not "obvious" at all that the 'memo' was lost or destroyed.

We _do_ agree on the goals of the project, even it's unlikely to add much to the mix...

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

Brian Bell said...

@ Kevin

I think you would have to file with all of the agencies to cover your bases. But in truth, I don't think it's in anyone's files. I think it was destroyed for whatever reasons. As CDA said, there would be more than just that piece of paper filed somewhere if it had anything to do with own visitors.

As far as me being locked into some prescribed skeptic's opinion, I'm not. If it says "victims" no one has any proof those victims were aliens. For all we know, they could just as easily be humans, although that sounds detestable to true ET proponents. Why? Because they already think the event was an alien crash!

Nitram Ang said...

CDA Argumentatively wrote:

"I think you and others have already conceded that the issue of what the memo says will NOT be resolved. The most that will happen is that possibly a few more dubious words may be deciphered (but will still be disputed) but that is all. The memo itself (unless it miraculously turns up in a top secret archive) is forever beyond decipherment.

Consequently your idea that the issue of the Ramey memo will be resolved is a pipe dream. Just as is the idea of an ET visit to earth in July 1947."

These sorts of statements are NOT helpful CDA - and really just waste the time of Kevin & David in terms of responding.

There is another blog side which suits you better and where you seem quite well received so maybe that's a better place for you and Brian to comment on things you really no very little about.

Maybe we won't get an answer, but it's important to try and the majority of people who post on this blog seem to agree.
Even Lance is making quite a positive contribution to the effort and I thank him for his help and some stuff he is working on for me privately...

You comments are again just creating noise and I see further, have led to DR & KR having a minor tussle on the matter (something I prefer not to see, at least not on this blog), so why can't you simply keep quiet, until you have something useful and constructive to say?

Thanks for your understanding.

Regards
Nitram.

KRandle said...

Brian -

You continue to reveal your true nature. So it says, "victims of the wreck," that doesn't mean alien. But you see, the nature of the victims, if we can clarify the text of the memo might just be revealed... please note that I'm not saying they are or aren't aliens, only that in the context of the memo we might understand exactly what is going on. You, however, concede that it might be victims of the wreck but then move into speculation about the nature of the victims. You are actually attempting here to create your explanation in case our attempts to read the memo result in information that goes against your preconceived notions. You've already revealed that you believe the word to be findings, though that is one of the low probabilities. So, once again we know exactly where you come from.

Paul Young said...

Brian wrote, "If it says "victims" no one has any proof those victims were aliens. For all we know, they could just as easily be humans,...."

That's fair enough.
However, if you're still swallowing the latest official explanation for the "Roswell Incident"...that it was a mogul balloon, then there shouldn't be any victims at all. Be it mogul or the original cover story, a weather balloon, these things weren't crewed.
Cutting to the chase, if the memo can be proved to say "victims of the wreck"...then it's proof positive that the US air force are still lying.
I'm surprised that so many people on the sceptical side are,seemingly, so negative in wanting the memo to be deciphered...if only to put this part of the RI puzzle to bed, once and for all.

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

Hi David

I see the clowns have annoyed you a bit. Of course, anyone posing ridiculous scenarios about this being "Ramey's sci-fi script" or "how do we know the message isn't in Hebrew" is not worth the time to deal with, so don't take it personally my friend.

However I don't enjoy seeing you and Kevin having a disagreement on quite "high level technical matters".
You have a "very good chance" of being right about "Victims of the Wreck" and Kevin, I'm certain, is not saying you are right or wrong - he simply can't say for sure you are right I think!

Personally the word I see with my eye is "remains". I believe that I am almost certainly incorrect - but again we will have to wait and see.

I would like to add, and please advise if you disagree, that the words "The" (before "victims") and "of the" (after "victims") are far more likely to be correct (say 99.99%) as opposed to "victims" which we might only give 80%.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend David and don't let the "troublesome twosome" get you down.

Regards
Nitram

Nitram Ang said...

Lance, your post is rather noisy, what I think you meant to ask:

"Tell us, David, what EXACT claim Simon is making? Where can we see his forensic proof of this? What tests did Simon perform?"

Regards
Nitram

Lance said...

Martin,

In the spirit of cooperativeness, I deleted my earlier message.

You and I already know the answer to the questions (as does David).

Simon makes no forensic claim about "Victims of the Wreck" and to imply otherwise is AT LEAST misleading (and I think my "at least is being far far too kind).

Lance

Brian Bell said...

@ Kevin

"You continue to reveal your true nature. So it says, "victims of the wreck," that doesn't mean alien."

>> Really? And what nature would that be exactly? I think I've made myself clear. What I wrote is what you also said above - if "victims" is really written there, it doesn't mean that it's referencing 'space aliens'. Most likely any victims were probably human. Or perhaps, just perhaps, they were really Brazel's sheep who supposedly ate "tin foil" as some here claim they would! (Which by the way they don't if you read up on it).

"You are actually attempting here to create your explanation in case our attempts to read the memo result in information that goes against your preconceived notions."

>> I've already stated that if it says 'victims' it's probably referencing humans. I believe the persons trying to 'speculate' and 'create' their own explanations are you and fellow ET'ers. You ridicule speculation while you speculate yourself the memo references an alien crash. Ridiculous hypocrisy.

"You've already revealed that you believe the word to be findings, "

>> Not certain what this means, can you please clarify?

Overall Kevin you seem dispassionate about 'speculation' when in reality if the memo does read 'victims' you're still going to have to speculate what that means.

Victims does not equal aliens.

KRandle said...

Brian -

You miss the point, as always... If we can read, with any clarity, "victims of the wreck," then I will speculate that we'll be able to read the vast majority of the memo with clarity. If that is the case, then context will provide us with an answer without a great deal of speculation.

David will tell us that the context of the memo based on his interpretation makes it clear that we're dealing with non-human entities. David will tell us that he is not one hundred percent certain about his interpretation, but at the moment, it is the best that we have.

The point of acquiring, an then providing the new scans to a wide audience is a hope that we will be able to read the memo with a degree of certainty. At that point, depending on the context of the memo, depending on the specific wording in the memo, and depending on the source (if we can determine it from the memo) we might have an answer. Wild speculation, which seems to be your forte, that and spewing "facts" that can't be verified, does not advance our knowledge.

Oh, in case you missed it, I didn't say that victims equaled alien... but I did say that context might reveal the nature of the victims.

Lance -

Thank you for your post. It tends to clarify rather than obscure.

Nitram Ang said...

Brian

If you have something "positive and useful" to add in terms of how Kevin, David and their TEAM might be able to make progress with the reading of the memo please advise.

If, like many people, you have no suggestions for avenues of "further INVESTIGATION" then please note my advice to CDA earlier.

Thank you in anticipation

Nitram

Brian Bell said...

@ Kevin

"You miss the point, as always... If we can read, with any clarity, "victims of the wreck," then I will speculate that we'll be able to read the vast majority of the memo with clarity."

There's no guarantee that would be possible. It isn't possible now.

There are words there that can be read even now, but that hasn't brought us any further clarity. Has it?

So how is confirmation that "victims of the wreck" going to add more clarity to additional words currently indecipherable?

Rudiak already claims it says "victims" and for him and most others here the context means "aliens".

Once again I think the purpose of this new attempt is really just to further bolster the premise that it has something to do with aliens.

And as you said yourself, speculation is all you really have in the end regardless of what it says. It doesn't use any words that confirms alien visitation even under the current readings.

Brian Bell said...

@ Nitram

Ok Mr./Mrs. mystery blog commentator.

My advice would be to use the technogy already recommended on Rich's site about a month ago.

http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2015/11/regarding-ramey-memo.html?m=1



David Rudiak said...

I don't believe even with perfect clarity and with it saying VICTIMS (plus other words I believe indicate dealing with recovered bodies like PREP), that the memo can tell us specifically who the victims were. (On that much I would have to agree with Brian Bell.) I see no indication of words like "Martians", "aliens", "space men", or the like, nor does anyone else.

But the memo very definitely also describes the recovered object as THE "DISC" (even Barry Greenwood agrees on that), and the probable full phrase is IN THE "DISC" (where the bodies were). If these were human bodies, then why use "DISC" for the crash object? What super-secret disc-like craft did anyone have?

And why all the continued secrecy? How could this have been more horrific than other U.S. experiments that have already been disclosed over the years (such as radiation experiments on disabled and retarded children) to require continued secrecy?

I also am not aware of body witnesses from Roswell ever referring to the bodies being human. The standard description is that they were humanoid, but not human, about 4 feet tall, large heads for the body, no ears, a slit for a mouth, and maybe only the hint of a nose. So if there were VICTIMS found IN THE "DISC" and they didn't appear human, what exactly is left?

Yes, context does matter.

David Rudiak said...

Lance,

Where did I say that Simon made a "forensic claim" (YOUR words), i.e., he would swear to it in court. What I said was that he was "our forensic photography expert". (That's in fact his profession--he's a pro, not some amateur, was all I was saying). What Martin wrote me last May was that Simon did indeed think it was probably "VICTIMS"--that is what he kept seeing as he worked on it, but he was making no definite claims as yet. However, I have yet to hear anything where he has changed his mind and maybe thought something else there, just that he can't be 100% certain it is VICTIMS. (At least, that is how I interpreted Martin's emails.)

I was actually surprised that Simon expressed any opinion at all on the matter. He told me when we were in Arlington that he considered himself a technician trying to clear the image up as much as possible and he wasn't going to attempt to read anything or express an opinion on what was there.

BTW, Martin had another image processing expert (who I don't know the identity of other than his first name) take a look at just the "VICTIMS" word without telling him anything about it, thus he didn't know it had anything to do with Roswell. His conclusion (according to Martin) was that the word was probably VICTIMS.

BTW, I didn't "prime" Simon or our other photography expert Jerry Morelock with VICTIMS, as I also discussed other proposed words with them, and provided them with the full context in which the photo was taken (also obvious by examination of the entire set of four photo negatives--it was a press photo op showing a weather balloon, the official explanation). Jerry thought at the time the key word looked more like REMAINS. I suggested he try stretching the text out ~50% because it was squashed down by perspective and have another look (as a small "r" can look like a squashed down "V"), but never heard back on this.

Based on the actions of the military, Jerry (who had some military background) also thought it wasn't a balloon recovered, there had been a cover-up, but of a secret project. Again another opinion, for what it is worth. My point is that they were quite capable of making up their own minds.

Lance said...

David,

You and I have vastly different views on how to simply tell the truth. Thanks for clarifying that you don't even actually know what Simon said even while you appeal above to his authority as a forensic expert.

And now you throw in another unnamed "expert".

This is the same thing that the Roswell slides buffoons did. And as we saw there, this approach (to supporting an idea with ANY evidence, no matter how tenuous or insubstantial) leads into buffoonery.

Lance

Brian Bell said...

@ David

If it does say "victims" the only thing it most definitely suggests is that what came down wasn't a Mogul Balloon. Perhaps that's all we will ever get out of it. Maybe that's enough.

I tend to think "disc" was used because what was originally found was thought to be debris from a "disc" of the type people kept on reporting during that time. It doesn't necessarily mean there literally was a flying craft of some sort shaped as a disc.

I can't tell you what they might have been testing or whom the victims may reference.

While we have established the word was used in cases where vehicles of many types wrecked or crashed, they always referenced human victims in cars, planes, trains, etc.

If these were military personnel I think we might see words more like "crew", "pilots", "casualties", "bodies", etc.

"Victim" implies someone who was an unfortunate casualty by intention or by accident.

While Kevin despises any speculative thought, aside from conjecture the thing was an alien spaceship, we might also consider:

1) Captured WW2 German or Soviet aircraft
2) Prototype VTOL disc aircraft
3) Much larger piloted spy balloon
4) Prototype suborbital rocket or plane
5) Prototype electrogravitic devise
6) Chemical/biological devise or drone
7) High altitude human test gondola

While everyone tends to think the records of such tests or incidents would be shared publically by now, there are many reasons why they might not be - the devise was later found to be viable and is still classified; the records were simply destroyed; the goverment and the military may still percieve potential embarrasment or litigation.

The incident may be the tip of an iceberg for something much more extensive regarding secret human population tests no one wants to disclose.

That's pure conjecture, but it's not any different than suggesting the thing carried alien victims.

Don Maor said...

Bell said:

"The incident may be the tip of an iceberg for something much more extensive regarding secret human population tests no one wants to disclose. That's pure conjecture, but it's not any different than suggesting the thing carried alien victims."

I think it is completely different. We have, for example, Sarbacher saying that Roswell incident included alien bodies, a lot of witnesses describing humanoid bodies, etc, and absolutely no evidence or even testimonies for the "human victims" scenario. From the testimonial point of view, both scenarios are completely different. We could make a whole listing on why both scenarios are abysmally different.

KRandle said...

Brian -

You said, "Once again I think the purpose of this new attempt is really just to further bolster the premise that it has something to do with aliens."

But once again you offer an opinion with no basis in fact. The purpose of our attempt to read the memo was to resolve this one mystery. If it verified the alien interpretations of the memo, fine. If it does not, fine... we are after a resolution and not validation. Once you realize that, you can move forward.

And no, I don't despise speculation.... only that which is not predicated on fact or on information that is two decades out of date... for example we know that we're not dealing with captured Nazi aircraft but we researched that avenue in depth two decades ago. We learned who captured the Horten Brothers aircraft, a history of "tailless" aircraft design, the flying wing, and other avenues that might have produced a terrestrial craft of unusual design that might have not been recognized by those in Roswell. And, of course, there was nothing in the Soviet inventory in 1947 that hadn't already been seen by American intelligence officers and aviators. I mean we even know about the MiG-25 flown to Japan by a deflecting pilot in the mid-1970s.

Please point to any source that suggests a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft in 1947 that had a disc shape. Any source at all even if it is a highly speculative source found in science fiction.

I'll point out that the balloon operations in New Mexico in 1947 were searched and that search included Naval experimentation. I spent a great deal of time at White Sands, in Alamogordo at their space museum and at Holloman AFB. I found nothing there that suggested any other piloted spy balloon. I have all sorts of records of what was going on in the region which explains I can tell you all about missile and rocket launches for example. More speculation that is out of date, unsourced and virtually useless.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your useless speculations. I will note that the Air Force, in 1994, looked into much of this and had access to the records of the experimentation going on that might have resulted in the debris. Half a century later there would have been nothing classified about these experiments and had they found some record or evidence that this was the case, they would have spread the word far and wide. That they did not suggests they found nothing other than Mogul... and experiments that took place a decade later.

For speculation to be useful, there must be some basis in fact, not just random ideas thrown out to obscure the data. Speculate all you want, but make it relevant, something that you rarely do.

cda said...

Nitram:

"Personally the word I see with my eye is "remains". I believe that I am almost certainly incorrect - but again we will have to wait and see."

Is this a serious contribution or not? Your eyes tell you one thing, but what they tell you is almost certainly incorrect. Is that so? My eyes tell me your name is 'Nitram', but this also is almost certainly wrong.

What makes you think your eyes are not functioning as they should be? Also, why does it upset you that DR and KR do not agree on certain things?

You seem to be a skeptic (of the ET answer) but are mixed up as to your true beliefs, if you indeed have any at all.

And certain personalities on this blog, including me, continue to annoy you. What a pity!

Actually certain personalities annoy me also, but it is all part of the debate.

And I repeat my prediction: Nothing useful to our understanding of the universe, or life within it (whether intelligent life or not) will come out of further analysis of the Ramey memo. Nothing at all.

cda said...

Don Maor:

You wrote: "We have, for example, Sarbacher saying that Roswell incident included alien bodies..."

Please quote where Sarbacher ever mentioned Roswell. He did, I believe, once mention "bodies", but described them (second-hand) as being like insects (!). This was in his reply to a William Steinman, who wrote to him in 1983. I do not believe that Sarbacher ever mentioned Roswell at all, nor did he in his early interview with Wilbert Smith (done through a third party) in 1950.

KRandle said...

CDA -

I believe that the like insects quote, which was used as a way to bolster the Not Roswell Slides was not a reference to what they looked like but suggested some sort of an exoskeleton. In the Not Roswell Slides debate that, and the Child of the Earth cricket and Sarbacher were used to show that the image on the Not Roswell Slides was insect-like fits into descriptions given earlier. At least that was my take on it.