Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Ramey Memo Update

It has been just one year since we attempted to get better scans of the Ramey Memo and determine what it said. I had thought, as had Martin, that while the team was in Fort Worth, they would have the answer. I expected them to be able to resolve this with our modern equipment, the best men available to create the scans and the wonderful cooperation of those at the University of Texas at Arlington. That wasn’t what happened.

So, to keep Rich Reynolds happy (and he could have sent an email), to prove that we are hiding nothing, and to note that I had planned to publish something now
Ramey holding the memo. Photo copyright by University of Texas at Arlington, scan made
in April 2015.
that we have reached the one year point (but given Game of Thrones started season six Sunday night I was delayed) I thought it time to update all this. We have tried, after all, to keep everyone alerted, provided all who wanted them the scans so that they could bring their expertise to bear, and made sure that any one of those on the skeptical side of the house who wanted scans got them, nothing has changed radically.

Oh, there are those who suggest the scans are a little better, and if you look, you can see the dreaded line “victims of the wreck,” but it is still a matter of resolution and we just don’t have it. Not to the point where we can say, “Yes, this is exactly what it says.”

David Rudiak, at his website, has published his best interpretation of the Ramey Memo. We can find hundreds who will say that they can read the memo and we can find just as many who disagree with any of the interpretations offered.
Several weeks ago, I asked if it wasn’t time for us to call it on the memo. No real progress had been made but I was convinced to give it more time. There were still some avenues to be explored and though I don’t hold out much hope that this will give us anything new, there is that chance however remote.

The thing that must be remembered is that the experts who assisted in this volunteered their time and expertise. They were not compensated and because of that we are at the mercy of their schedules. Their paying work takes precedence over the volunteer work for us. That these men were interested enough in the outcome to provide their assistance, meaning that they saw this as a puzzle to be solved and not an exercise in proving one thing or another, is a tribute to them.

It should also be remembered that the best scans (all of them really) were provided to many people with the hope that someone would provide the clues to untangle all this and we could all nod and say, “Yes.” But after a year, that hasn’t happened and there are many people, on both sides of the fence who had tried to read the memo without moving the bar in any direction.

I know David will disagree with me on this. His interpretation is based on his thousands of hours of work and he believes it to be the best, but it just doesn’t quite allow us to make the call. Those who look at this dispassionately can see, when they look hard enough, some of the key phrases, but it just beyond our ability to prove that a specific Ramey Memo interpretation is accurate.

For me, this was the one document, if we could read it, which could help solve the riddle of what fell at Roswell. I had hoped the text would be clear enough and contain enough information that we could move our research into another area. I wasn’t so much concerned as to what it said but wanted to be able to read it, good or bad. As it stands now, this is an interesting bit of evidence that doesn’t lead us anywhere. Simon has told us that had the photographer been a foot closer, we wouldn’t be left with the ambiguity, but he wasn’t and we are.


To answer the question as to why we haven’t said anything in quite a while, there just hasn’t been anything to say. Research continues but many of those who have the scans have lost interest in attempting to resolve the message, some of us would like the answers, and some believe it is the one document that will prove what fell was alien… but right now, we just don’t know and I’m not sure this will ever tell us.

56 comments:

TheDimov said...

Yes, I thought this would be the 'smoking gun' but I think the higher resolution only made things harder to read! So yes, if only the photographer had been a step closer. Roswell is such a tantalising mystery you want to tear your hair out.

So for me now its a piece of the wreckage. And I really am staggered that not even one person has stepped forward after all these years to relinquish one.. I mean if I had a piece and was on my deathbed, or even before, I would certainly offer it up to researchers. But maybe its their pensions extending to their immediate family that might be the issue, I don't know how that works. But I really find it amazing that for all the pieces, not one has been 'exposed', this to me is really baffling. Or maybe it *has* happened already but because of overt skepticism it has been looked over? Have their been any pieces that have been more or less dismissed even though they have unusual properties? I think there was a documentary I saw, might have been with Dr Roger Leir, I'm not sure, but it was some sort of metal piece or fragment that was determined as not from earth, but I'm probably just thinking of an implant. Which also is a very interesting mystery in itself.

Brandon LeMaster said...

I saw this article and thought it may help with the Ramey Memo if the technology were available to the public.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/us/project-vic-child-abuse/index.html

Gilles Fernandez said...

Hello,

Houran, James. "A search for meaning in the Ramey document from the Roswell UFO case". Fund for UFO Research. Alexandria,Virginia. 2005-6. have "solved" its ufoological issue for long time now...

Well, David Rudiak is resisting cause the Roswell myth filter he had. Present him something linked to Roswell, he will find meaningfull (Roswell linked) patterns despite noise...

That's Rudiak and ufology, after all.

InBeforePArt1/Part2/Part3RepliesByDavidRudiak... ;)

Regards,

Gilles.

Brian Bell said...

I think it's time for those investigating the photo to actually hire a qualified lab using advanced software not yet on the market (as Brandon mentioned).

Having folks who are not necessarily privy to such software evaluate the photo hasn't produced any results.

There must be a lab using more advanced forensic techniques to evaluate images.

They might be domestic or international but they are out there somewhere.

I suggest crowd sourced funding as the way to go unless David and Kevin have the funds to do it themselves. I doubt it would be more than $10k to do this thing right using the best available technology.

KRandle said...

Gilles -

When we began this latest effort, we looked at the Horan material, but it seemed to be inconclusive at the end. There were suggestions about what might yield results. Horan did not have the original negatives, but used what I believe were first generation copies that I supplied and he used the scans that Stan Friedman had made. We were in Texas and were allowed to use the original negatives. That meant our examination was better and given improvements in the technology, our scans were better.

I have no preconceived notions here, I, as did Martin, wanted to resolve this if we could, provide documentation about how we arrived at whatever we arrived at so others might duplicate the effort, and provide copies of the scans to those who might be able to resolve this including those on the skeptical side of the fence. We had the opportunity to use the best equipment available, thanks to the University of Texas at Arlington. The point is that the matter was not resolved, we had better sources and equipment, and the assistance of some world class experts in forensic photography.

The end here, at the moment, is that we have not been able to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of many. Those who look at the memo can see "victims of the wreck" but it is not seen with enough definition to say that is truly what it says. I believe that anyone who looks at it with an open mind will say, "Yeah, that kind of looks like 'victims of the wreck' but I just can't be sure." Or in other words, we have not been able to read the memo, other than a few words on which there is near universal agreement and "victims of the read," is not among those words.

I see nothing in Houran's publication that rules out David's interpretation and nothing to suggest that Houran was in complete agreement with David. It seems that the issue is still unresolved and although some work is still going forward, I have said in the past that I fear we will not be able to answer the question and the Ramey Memo, while interesting, does not advance any of the completing interpretations. At the moment all that could be done has been done and it is a matter of getting all sorts of experts to look at this... we have had some success, which is to say, experts have done their best, but we are not able to resolve the image to the point where we all agree with what it says.

james tankersley said...

Kevin, David, i have wondered whether VICTIMS OF THE WRECK is really VISITORS OF THE {take your pick). i myself have not looked at this further because all i can make out is scribble lines with no defining letters which makes it that much harder to try to read what may be in it, and there all kinds of ways to interpret what may be in the memo as each person can go in any direction they want. However i want to salute anyone that attempts to solve it anyway. I think David has partially read it correctly but who knows?

cda said...

Which do you prefer:

1. Two clear and readable documents (from Twining and McCoy) in the 1947-48 timeframe stating that there was a complete lack of physical evidence in the form of "crash recovered exhibits" in the hands of AMC at Wright Field.

2. An illegible document in someone's hand that contains possible deciphered words that refer to "victims of the wreck" (words that are still in dispute). The "wreck", even if it is the correct word, has no proven link to what happened at Roswell. Moreover there is no date, visible heading or signature on the document.

So which does anyone prefer? I know my answer.

Brian Bell said...

....and I've said before that if it does read "victims" it still doesn't prove ET crashed.

"Victims" could be anyone - pilots, passengers, ground crew, or civilians.

But no, they just have to be these little scaly grey guys with big black eyes and silvery wrapped suits. Yup...just has to be...

Go ahead and add in Gerald Anderson's "golden helmets" and we've got a story.

Maybe these guys were tiny football players from Notre Dame?

David Rudiak said...

"i have wondered whether VICTIMS OF THE WRECK is really VISITORS OF THE"

For starters, "VISITORS" is one letter too long. It is a 7-letter word there. Since it is an impact printer with fixed letter spacing, word length can be definitive in the most visible parts of the memo.

I would like to point out AGAIN that VICTIMS is the standout MOST PROBABLE word that can fit there. The main lines of evidence in support of this:

1) Of 9 comparison SERIOUS reads (various people who devoted some time to this), 6 of 9 thought the word was VICTIMS. (see http://www.roswellproof.com/ramey_memo_compare.html) Of the three not reading VICTIMS, they are all self-described Roswell skeptics (bias can work BOTH ways).

Similarly, I have had a poll at my website for over a dozen years. Of nearly 3000 people who have weighed in, 79% agree "THE VICTIMS" is definitely or probably there. (I'll state up front, based on another question in the poll, that this crowed is heavily "pro-ETH", about 85%, so not an unbiased poll.)

www.roswellproof.com/Critical_Phrases.html

2) Self-described skeptic Ross Evans got a friend of his running a website using Captchas to reduce the VICTIMS word to individual letters and allow visitors to the site to do best guesses for each letter. It turned out V, I, I, M, and S were the overwhelming favorites of some 2000 readers. The ONLY possible English word with the strongly favored letters in these places is VICTIMS. Note there was no possibility of any bias in what people read, and the result still turned out to be VICTIMS when the favorite letters were taken collectively. Ross wrote on the Rich Reynolds blog that these results persuaded him VICTIMS is indeed in the memo.

3) I used a computer OCR program employing a pattern matching method called cross-correlation, where the letters in the VICTIMS word were matched in probability against a set of template teletype letters (made of equal size and proportions). Of all proposed words there (VICIMS, VIEWING, FINDING, REMAINS) plus two similar nonsense words used as controls (VIRGINS, VIOLINS), VICTIMS was the standout word in letter probability, comparable in overall letter probability to unanimously agreed-upon other words in the memo, WEATHER BALLOONS and FORT WORTH, TEX. (Because everyone agrees they are there, they were used as controls.) Note, again, the computer doesn't care about the outcome, so this is another unbiased way to test the word. (I have not published these results.)

An old graphic that compares older scans against these words (in teletype font) can be found at:

www.roswellproof.com/Victim_compare.html

The results of #3 have not been repeated by me since the new scans were done, which would involve many, many more hours of work. (I expect to get around it eventually.) My bitter experience is the debunkers really don't give a damn what evidence exists favoring VICTIMS, since psychological denial is their thing and they don't really want to argue the evidence in a scientific way. Since they already know with 100% certainty Roswell was caused by a Mogul balloon and no bodies could have been involved, their psychological denial system automatically rejects any evidence to the contrary.

KRandle said...

Brian -

And as I have said, the context of the memo, if we can resolve it to the point where there is agreement as to what it says, then the source of the "victims" would probably be clear. But, without being able to "decipher" the entire memo, we simply do not know...

And BTW, it was Jim Ragsdale who talked of golden helmets and not Gerald Anderson.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin, Brian:

The Ramey memo ALSO refers to the object recovered as "THE 'DISC'" (I consider this 100% certain). I know of no possible U.S. or Russian "disc" craft that could account for what was found. (There was the U.S. "flying flapjack", but it was grounded at the time and nowhere near Roswell.)

This begs the question why would Ramey use the word "disc" if it was some entirely conventional object that crashed, such as a balloon or airplane (or Brian's imaginary Russian TU-4)?

If Brian (and CDA) want to use the Twining memo as "proof" that there was no crashed flying disc, then they also need to accept at face value the statement that the discs were "real", and no known U.S. or foreign project could account for them.

I also noted in the Twining memo thread that before Gen. Schulgen and people contacted Twining and the AMC for an opionion, they first contacted Gen. LeMay, Dept. head of AF Research and Development, and asked him if the discs could be explained by some secret U.S. project. The point is, if they were already known to be ours, it would be a waste of time to investigate further, and would also risk compromising such a project. If LeMay had said they were ours and to cease looking into it, that would have ended it right there.

So I would say Brian has quite a conundrum. Yes, based only on the single word "victims", the "victims" could conceivably have been human, but in full context of the memo (craft was a "disc") and the historical record, there is just NO evidence to support this. If such a project existed, what's the big secret after almost 70 years that nobody can find any sort of trace on it? The Air Force could have done the big reveal in 1994 when they "investigated" and put the final nail in the coffin of the Roswell incident. But the best they could come up with was a nonexistent Mogul balloon. Sheesh!

KRandle said...

CDA -

We know where the picture was taken, we know when it was taken, we know who took it, and we know the names of everyone in it. You are splitting a hair here, and if we had been able to decipher it, your other two points might have been covered as well...

But if you're asking me if I accept two clear, dated signed documents over an unclear and ambiguous document, well the answer is simple. Those two unambiguous documents take precedence over the Ramey Memo simply because we can't read the whole thing. If we could, then we would have another bit of evidence, though I'm not sure what that evidence would tell us.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin, (1 of 2)

Since when did it become a requirement that we be able to read the ENTIRE memo unambiguously? That was always impossible just in principle since portions are hidden from view such as the beginning of all lines being under Ramey's thumb, elsewhere in strong shadow.

However, the following CAN be stated based on largely on strong consensus opinion:

1) The memo is clearly about Roswell, not Ramey's laundry list. (Based on unanimous words like "WEATHER BALLOONS", and strong consensus words like "DISC" and "ROSWELL" also being in the text. There is also a big black stamp at the top, partially obscured, but ending in "LL", thus likely "ROSWELL"

2) Most agree the word "VICTIMS" is also in the memo, including a group Captcha read by ~2000 people who knew nothing of the memo and were reading only individual letters. Computer OCR also confirmed "VICTIMS" as being the most probable word.

3) It was probably written by RAMEY (most agree the signature line is RAMEY or RRAMEY).

4) The wording is totally unlike any civilian Roswell news bulletin or newspaper story, despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. It is an internal military memo. (A clear "VA..... in the address header suggests to me the memo was directed to General Vandenberg at the Pentagon, who newspaper confirmed being in contact with Ramey.)

5) Most strongly agree the phrase "THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK" is then followed by "YOU FORWARDED TO THE (Ramey's thumb) [someone-perhaps a "TEAM"] AT FORT WORTH, TEX. The word "TEAMS" or "CREWS" are also at the very end of the memo (last word).

6) The last part of the memo is about the story they were publicly putting out. (This is the correct context in which "WEATHER BALLOONS" was being used, not referring to what was found). Different people have different versions of exactly what it might say, but the general consensus is this is part is about what the pubic would be told. (E.g., the TEAMS/CREWS at the end I believe refers to the RAWIN/Weather Balloon teams that carried out demonstrations over the next few days to further debunk Roswell and the saucers.)

7) Roughly 40% of the memo is made up of small, common, English words, like THE, AT, OF, AND, YOU, TO, IN, THIS/THAT, OUT, etc. These are mostly relatively easy to pick out and make up the grammatical framework of the memo. They also give clues to what is to follow. E.g., "THE", the most common English word, appears at least four times in the memo and in a terse military telex devoid of most adjectives likely suggests a noun to follow. The word "AT" appears at least three times, indicating a location to follow.

David Rudiak said...

(2 of 2)

7) There are other words I'm pretty sure about, but for which there is no consensus. For example, at the end of the line above "THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK" is the phrase "NEAR OPERATION AT THE" (then Ramey's thumb again, but from grammar, obviously a location), followed by "AND THE VICTIMS..." The keyword here is "OPERATION", indicating an BIG frigging military deal that was ONGOING, not Marcel and Cavitt previously going out a picking up a stupid weather balloon, end of story.

8) English, like all languages, has rules. This is NOT the same as "faces in the clouds" or "tea leaf reading", which are based on interpretation of total randomness. Language is NOT random. Text font, word lengths, spelling, grammar, syntax, and context/sensibility all set limits on what words can fit and what words can't. Making declarations that nothing can be deduced because the memo cannot be made totally clear shows a total misunderstanding of how language interpretation really works. Here is one example from a book on human perception showing broken up lettering, some very badly broken up, that can usually still be read because human beings use multiple sources of information to interpret otherwise very ambiguous text (or speech), something computers are very bad at in general.

www.roswellproof.com/Word_completion.html

Brian Bell said...

@ David:

There are real answers to your questions so please read below.

"This begs the question why would Ramey use the word "disc" if it was some entirely conventional object that crashed, such as a balloon or airplane (or Brian's imaginary Russian TU-4)?"

ANSWER: Because Haut's press release and the subsequent newspaper articles called it a "disc" first. Besides, as you know already, that word had been used repeatedly in other newspapers before July. I surmise everyone just referred to "it" as initially described. Also your memo has the noun DISC in "___" marks which are generally used to convey what "it's" being called, but which "it" is not. Just as if I were to write; David, I believe your "story" concerning Roswell.

"If Brian (and CDA) want to use the Twining memo as "proof" that there was no crashed flying disc, then they also need to accept at face value the statement that the discs were "real", and no known U.S. or foreign project could account for them."

ANSWER: Indeed. I have no problem with the USAAF describing the phenomenon as "real". But "real" doesn't mean "alien". I also have no problem believing the men writing these memos had analyzed what they knew to the best of their ability and came up empty. But again that doesn't immediately mean the phenomenon was alien in nature. It just means they didn't know. The memos clearly indicate this.

"If LeMay had said they were ours [the discs] and to cease looking into it, that would have ended it right there."

ANSWER: Yes, but then he would have breached security himself if he had simply told everyone the discs were ours. If you argue Twining didn't tell Schulgen the truth, then we can argue LeMay didn't either. After all you argue there was a top secret cover up to hide aliens; who's to say there wasn't a top secret cover up to hide a military project? A cover up is a cover up.

"The Air Force could have done the big reveal in 1994 when they "investigated" and put the final nail in the coffin of the Roswell incident. But the best they could come up with was a nonexistent Mogul balloon. Sheesh!"

ANSWER: Yes, but why would they tell the world about some advanced ultra secret military project just to appease some UFO buffs? If we agree they can hide aliens for 70 years, obviously they can hide a terrestrial project as well. So they just defaulted to the obvious - a Mogul balloon and left it at that.

The ETH can make a great disinformation campaign for an aircraft that uses advanced technology outside the mainstream industrial world. In fact we know the USAF has repeatedly engaged in such activity. We also know disinformation is a mix of fact and fiction that often is designed to produce competing viewpoints - polar opposites if you will - while obscuring the real truth inbetween.

Jim Bender said...

Great work David R., your tirelessly effort (regarding theRramey memo) to prove that the Roswell incident of 1947 was indeed a UFO (wreck disc ) and not crash dummies attached to a weather balloon.

Bravo David appreciate your efforts!!!!!!!!!!!!

David Rudiak said...

Brian,

Your debunking technique is typical: throw as much mud at the wall and see if any of it sticks. None ever does.

One day you are arguing it was a Mogul balloon, then any balloon, then a defecting Russian TU-4, some secret U.S. project (unspecified), now a super-secret U.S. disc project. Tomorrow it will be something else. Make up your mind! I think Don Maor called it a Schroedinger's cat approach, where Roswell was simultaneously everything at once.

Such scattershot "explanations", all with ZERO evidence in support, do not explain anything. If it was a supersecret U.S. disc project that LeMay was keeping secret, what happened to it? Imagine, we had a fleet of silent, supersonic disc-like craft with no obvious conventional propulsion, with tremendous maneuverability, and then what did we do? We threw them away and went back to more primitive aircraft that couldn't begin to match them, leaving no trace of the advanced disc program. Does that remotely make logical sense? Only to the debunking mentality.

cda said...

The Twining memo says early on as follows:

"2. It is the opinion that

(a) the phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious."


It is abundantly clear that this is an OPINION only, and based on sighting reports. It is most defeintely NOT based on any hardware actually recovered. Since the memo states plainly later on that no "crash recovered exhibits" exist at AMC, does that not mean precisely that there is NO HARDWARE known to AMC? What more does David Rudiak need to realise and accept this?

McCoy's 1948 memo(s) confirm this perfectly.

It is preposterous to go on and try and maintain that Ramey's indecipherable memo indicates there was a big cover-up. Even if we could be 100% certain of the decipherment of the few words DR and others have analysed, it would be a pathetic attempt to disprove Twining and McCoy. This is in addition to the fact that the genuine discovery of an ET visit would result in literally hundreds if not thousands of papers. WHERE ARE these papers? They are surely not STILL top secret after 69 years. DR has dug himself into a tight corner from which he cannot extract himself. Hence his reliance on this scrap of paper in Ramey's hand. And there is absolutely zilch visible to say it was ever 'secret' anyway, let alone 'top secret'.

Yes English has grammar rules, punctuation rules and maybe other rules, and a few words CAN perhaps be deciphered. But the overall conclusion remains: Twining and McCoy said emphatically "there ain't any hardware known to us". Which means exactly what it says.

So we can forget all about Exon, duBose and the few others who imagined otherwise 40 years on.

DR and Kevin are obviously desperately hoping for a miracle to end all miracles. Let them dream on.

And I go back to Bill Moore's view that the Ramey memo was merely the text of what Ramey was going to broadcast to the nation that evening. Of course he knew this because, by some magic super-duper eyesight, he could decipher it without any optical equipment! Such is ufology.

Brian Bell said...

@ David

While you state 2,000 people on a friend's website interpreted a CAPTCHA and chose the letters "V, I, I, M, S" as the most probable letters contained in the seven letter word you claim reads "VICTIMS", I don't think we can reliably count on their conclusions.

It's interesting, but we have no control group or way to evaluate who these people were and what their motive was. We don't even know if they could access the CAPTCHA more than once to repeatedly "up the numbers" so to speak.

So you've claimed, based on this data (and others), that the majority of people who viewed this word thought it read "VICTIMS". Although you've tested other words, this seems to be your best result.

You've even gone as far as saying because "V, I, I, M, S" was seen more often, the only choices left in the English language are "victims" and "violins". Obviously violins doesn't work.

However there are other seven letter words beginning with "v" and sometimes ending in "s" that could fit into the sentence being analyzed.

CLAIM:

The victims of the wreck...

ALTERNATIVES:

1) The visuals of the wreck...

(As in photographs taken at the site or those planned for Ramey's office?)

2) The viewers of the wreck...

(As in a reference to Marcel, Cavitt, Brazel?)

3) The viewing of the wreck...

(A reference to the debris and photo session planned for Ramey's office?)

4) The vestige of the wreck...

(By definition = remains, remnant, fragment)

5) The vectors of the wreck...

(As in the precise aeronautical directional where it fell?)

6) The viruses of the wreck...

(Potential biological agents used in a weapons test drone?)

While I'm certain you'll claim these can't work, they're better than "violins" by a wide margin.

However, what bugs me most is not the "victims" but your idea that Ramey sent this telegram to Vandenberg. You claim:

"It is an internal military memo. (A clear "VA..... in the address header suggests to me the memo was directed to General Vandenberg at the Pentagon, who newspaper confirmed being in contact with Ramey.)"

If you are correct, then as others have pointed out, Ramey is confirming that Vandenberg sent HIM the disc and bodies - "AND THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK YOU FORWARDED TO THE TEAM AT FORT WORTH, TX".

How is that possible?

A) Vandenberg shipped a disc with bodies from Washington? Was the entire episode then a propaganda stunt to get Soviets to think we had some advantage they didn't?

OR

B) Vandenberg ordered Blanchard to ship the items from RAAFB to Fort Worth without telling Ramey first?

C) Ramey is simply referring to Vandenberg's call to him and his subsequent passing of the orders to Blanchard?

KRandle said...

David -

I never said that we needed to read the entire memo, only that we need to read enough to put it into context. If we can't do that, then it would remain somewhat ambiguous.

And since there are problems with noise on the negative and in the various scans, and because it seems to be with our current technology to be just outside the range of clarity, there are areas that are ambiguous and therefore open to interpretation, or as Russ Estes said, a problem with faces in the clouds. The experiment with priming, which only suggested that those attempting to read the memo were sometimes influenced by what they had been told, also suggests there are some problems. All of these might be solved in time, but at the moment, this very moment, we cannot simply say that the memo says this.

I will note that Bond Johnson, who took the photographs, said that he had brought the paper into Ramey's office with him. He quickly recanted that claim when it became clear to him that it reduced the importance of the memo. And no, we don't have to go through all the starts and stops of Johnson's story because he was clearly engaged in self promotion to the exclusion of the truth.

Your passion and dedication to solving this mystery is compelling, but the truth is that we still do not have the clarity we need, such as that offered by the Roswell Slides Research Group to make the positive call.

CDA -

I really wish you would stop assigning motives to me because you simply do not understand the overall situation here. There is nothing desperate in my attempts to resolve the memo. I only care in what it says and how it might affect our understanding of what was going on with Ramey.

Anthony Mugan said...

At.the moment this isn't a debate that can be resolved but I have a suspicion that critical scentance may turn out to be 'victims of the wreck for convay on....Fort Worth Tx.'
Would be very interested in any factors that could eliminate 'for convay on' from consideration.

Brian Bell said...

More for David to ponder and reject. You wrote:

"Such scattershot "explanations", all with ZERO evidence in support, do not explain anything. If it was a supersecret U.S. disc project that LeMay was keeping secret, what happened to it? Imagine, we had a fleet of silent, supersonic disc-like craft with no obvious conventional propulsion, with tremendous maneuverability, and then what did we do? We threw them away and went back to more primitive aircraft that couldn't begin to match them, leaving no trace of the advanced disc program. Does that remotely make logical sense?"

QUESTIONS for David:

Does it remotely make sense that Ramey, the hinge pin to the entire worldwide alien cover up, was stupid enough to carry his ultra secret communique to a hoaxed photo op?

Does it remotely make sense to believe that two documents highlighting opinions about discs but saying nothing about Roswell, ET, or the recovery of crash debris, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt aliens really did crash in the desert?

Does it remotely make sense to believe that Twining hid pertinent facts about Roswell aliens from Schulgen, while claiming LeMay would never have dared to hide anything secret from Twining?

Does it remotely make sense to discount alternative theories on the grounds they have ZERO supporting evidence when your claim that ET crashed near Roswell is based on ZERO supporting evidence?

Does it remotely make sense to believe the military could successfully hide an alien presence for more than 70 years while claiming the military couldn't do the same for a top-secret terrestrial project?

Does it remotely make sense to quote Don Maor as a subject matter expert when he insists irrefutably that SOM1-01 is bonafide proof of alien visitation?

Does it remotely make sense to claim skeptics and scientists apply a close-minded, draconian, and anti-Copernican mindset to the ET reality, when you and others apply the same mindset to deny the possibility of advanced scientific breakthroughs in quantum physics?

The answer to these (and most) of your silly rhetorical questions is a definitive and resounding NO.

The only kind of person who would believe in such backwards, hypocritical, and contradictory statements are those who's romantic fantasy is to meet benevolent aliens who make dreams come true, can fix a broken world, and can confirm that humankind is the product of genetic engineering by aliens who are literally our "space dads".

Such nonsense belongs in fairy tales and comic books. Not in mainstream science.

KRandle said...

Brian -

You are becoming needlessly snarky and I will not post anything else like this. It is always possible that no matter how strong your opinion, you might just be wrong.

Jim said...

Question...When you look at the memo you can pick out a few letters, and I think its possible to figure out the exact number of characters in each word. Has anybody tried feeding this memo to software engineer able to create an algorithim that would allow you to have a computer run through all the possible word combinations for each set of characters based on the known letters? It might yield some interesting results.

cda said...

Anthony:

I fear you are expecting a final resolution of this memo, when the likelihood of this is, frankly, zero. The so-called "critical sentence" has no chance of being resolved. There is simply no way the document can ever be satisfactorily deciphered, even if a few (very few) words probably can. And remember that even if I am wrong and most of it does eventually get deciphered, there will then be a fierce argument as to its meaning.

We have several perfectly clear documents to hand from that time period. Skeptics say they mean X whereas believers insist they could mean Y.

If the two sides cannot agree what the perfectly readable documents mean, what chance is there that they can ever agree what the indecipherable ones mean?

Quite a conundrum!

albert said...

@Jim,
You're talking about guessing, albeit educated guessing, and the guessers will lean toward their inclinations. We're humans; it's what we do. There simply isn't enough information in the negative. The best software can't create data that's not there, and I doubt that software is needed to select word combinations that military men might use in the situation depicted.
. .. . .. --- ....

KRandle said...

CDA -

I find that we are in agreement about some of this. As I have said, I fear that we might not be able to resolve the Ramey Memo ambiguities with the same decisiveness as happened with the Roswell Slides. It might be that the document is just too far from the camera, the film stock did not have the same capabilities for resolution that we found in later films and now digital cameras, and it might have been turned at too far an angle.

And while we have two perfectly readable documents, as you say, there is some wiggle room in them based on the historical context. We might find additional information that clarifies the situation if we continue our search.

David Rudiak said...

Jim wrote: (1 of 2)
"Question...When you look at the memo you can pick out a few letters, and I think its possible to figure out the exact number of characters in each word. Has anybody tried feeding this memo to software engineer able to create an algorithim that would allow you to have a computer run through all the possible word combinations for each set of characters based on the known letters? It might yield some interesting results."

Jim, that is exactly what I've done "by hand", not by computer algorithm, though I've used computer search engines to find a list of possible suspects. The search engine I've used the most is www.onelook.com.

FIRST start with an accurate letter counts for words (surprisingly, this simple restriction is frequently ignored). Because telex is an old-fashioned impact printer with equal spacing for letters (nonproportional font), columns of text on different lines of text line up with one another in straight lines. Thus line up the columns and draw lines for each column, as in this graphic:

www.roswellproof.com/Ramey_memo_letter_counts.html

Spaces between words can almost always be discerned. Therefore, ACCURATELY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY determining the length of most of the words is simply a matter of counting the columns of text between spaces. Just about all ambiguity in word lengths is removed by doing this.

Once you know the length of a word, you have already narrowed down the possibilities considerably, particularly for words only 2, 3, or 4 letters, most of which will be the most common English words, like THE, AT, TO, AND, FOR, OF, THIS, etc. Most of these are relatively easy to pick out. E.g., out of about 70 clearly visible words (not under Ramey's thumb, not in shadow, not above paper fold, etc.), there are at least four "THE's" and three "AT's". These short words provide a grammatical framework and give clues to the words that follow. Thus under the circumstances, "AT" will very likely be followed by a location (EX: "AT Fort Worth, Tex.", "AT Roswell"), and "THE" likely by a noun (flowery adjectives in a terse military telegram are much less likely). Ex: THE VICTIMS, THE WRECK, THE "DISC".

(One of my harsh critiques of the Randle/Houran paper is that they NEVER discussed these short, common words, even though obviously their reading subjects were picking many of them out ACROSS ALL READING CONTEXTS. In fact, based on their statistics, about half of all words read were these words, which should have been included in the "common" words read across all groups, along with "WEATHER BALLOONS" and "FORT WORTH, TEX.", etc.)

For the longer, less common English words in the memo, knowing even a few likely letters again considerably narrows down the possibilities. This is why I do a slow burn whenever anybody claims the message is totally "ambiguous". No, that is not how languages work. Languages are not random but have rules that GREATLY LIMIT the possibilities. Only a very limited number of words of a given length can have certain letters in them (correct length/spelling filter). Much fewer still will be grammatically correct (correct grammar filter) and make sense in the given word and historical context. (context/sensibility filter). Run the possibilities through all these linguistic rule filters, and only a few possible "perps" remain, maybe only one.

The example I've often used is the "VICTIMS" word, where you can readily pick out V, I, I, M, and S by eye. The ONLY 7-letter English word with those letters is VICTIMS. (These exact same letters were also the overwhelming choice of some 2000 Captcha readers in the experiment by skeptic Ross Evans, so it's not just me, but a strong majority of ALL readers who think they are there.)

David Rudiak said...

(2 0f 2)

Broader searches can be done. "M" might be "N", so maybe search only V, I, I, S. Then you still get a VERY LIMITED list of possible words: VICTIMS, VIRGINS, VIOLINS, VIROIDS, VIBRIOS, VILLI'S, VIGNIUS, VILNIUS, VITRICS, VINNIES. The only SENSIBLE word of this already restricted group is VICTIMS. I have a graphic at my website illustrating this:

www.roswellproof.com/Word_Search.html

Of course, it is possible to do even wider searches, e.g., using only V, I, I. The ONLY semi-sensible extra word that pops up is VIEWING. Besides being less sensible in the context of the words around it ("AND THE VI**I** OF THE WRECK YOU FORWARDED TO THE ********* TEAM AT FORT WORTH, TEX."), it also tests much less probable than VICTIMS in a computer OCR test. Also much less probable are other proposed words like REMAINS and FINDING.

Again and again, VICTIMS is the standout possibility here. Given all these tests, any "ambiguity" or doubt here is mostly imaginary. It is NOT a case of only seeing "faces in the clouds". It is NOT necessary to read every letter or word with total clarity, since linguistic rules enable the elimination of most ambiguity if even a few letters can be picked out. Humans are able to read and understand speech even in very noisy situations (bad handwriting, noisy room) because we do much more than pick out individual sounds and letters, applying rules of the language and context to pull out signal from noise.

Another graphic illustrating how well we humans can read words even with very broken up text can be found here:

www.roswellproof.com/Word_completion.html

Zak McKracken said...

"(but given Game of Thrones started season six Sunday night I was delayed) "

You are excused.

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian Bell asked: "...Does it remotely make sense that Ramey, the hinge pin to the entire worldwide alien cover up, was stupid enough to carry his ultra secret communique to a hoaxed photo op...?

One doesn't have to be "stupid" to make a simple mistake, even for a highly ranked military officers. I'm ex-military (1985-1989, US Navy, NAS Lemoore, Ca.). During that span a Navy Captain crashed an F-18 one afternoon because he failed to put his wheels down while coming in for a landing. I'm quite sure that he wasn't dim witted. Under pressure, even mild pressure, Ramey forgetting about a memo in his hand seems unremarkable...

KRandle said...

Brian -

In the past, here at this blog, we have covered a number of times in which smart, high-ranking people have inadvertently exposed highly-classified material to reporters and cameras. It does happen no matter how high that man or woman might have risen in the military or government service.

Brian Bell said...

@ Kevin and Lorrie:

Yes, in a very few instances mentioned on this blog have high level people mistakenly taken top secret information before the press.

But look at it this way.

The entire claim that the memo contains proof of a crashed alien saucer hinges on your speculation the man forgot he had the memo in his hand.

Not only are we examining a photo of the memo no less (not the real thing itself), but now we also have to speculate that Ramey made a mistake to even justify pondering the blurry image in the photo!

It's as if the ETH supporters must continuously produce conjectures in order to connect their desired outcome to the explanation behind the incident.

If it's all true, why do you have to bridge one speculative assumption to another, then to another, and yet another repeatedly to justify it was an alien event?

Don Maor said...

Brian Bell barked:

"Does it remotely make sense to quote Don Maor as a subject matter expert when he insists irrefutably that SOM1-01 is bonafide proof of alien visitation?"

So I am not an expert in anything Brian? How do you know? How about you? What are you?

So you called it "irrefutable". That is good. Even your highly twisted logic was not able to refute the SOM1-01, which is off-topic in this blog thread, by the way.

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian: admitting that people make mistakes is not speculative; it's what a philosopher might call a "brute fact". That was my only point.

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian states: "...The only kind of person who would believe in such backwards, hypocritical, and contradictory statements are those who's romantic fantasy is to meet benevolent aliens who make dreams come true, can fix a broken world, and can confirm that humankind is the product of genetic engineering by aliens who are literally our "space dads"..."

It seems you can divine the motives of why some are so interested in Roswell as a possible ET case. Based strictly on what someone here has actually written, who thinks aliens, if they exist, can "fix a broken world"? I'm not aware that Kevin feels this way, and I certainly don't, so where do you get this from? In the interest of Full Disclosure, my main interest in UFO's is that in studying them we might possibly find an answer, on Earth, to a very old question....

Brian Bell said...

@ Lorrie who wrote:

"It seems you can divine the motives of why some are so interested in Roswell as a possible ET case."

No. I'm not divining anything. I'm quoting what some UFO proponents have stated publically is their rationale for why visitors from space would have a keen interest in humanity. I didn't say Kevin was one of them, although perhaps he is. I don't know.

Since you're interested in alien contact you should be aware of all the speculative reasons why people believe these objects are proof of alien visitation. Let's just mention a few:

1) Because mankind has been visited by these aliens for thousands of years, these creatures are observers who are like our caretakers.

2) Because their is evidence that ancient aliens influenced human culture and technological evolution with a purpose in mind.

3) Because aliens are here to protect us from ourselves - we are destroying the planet and they want to prevent that.

4) Because the aliens are concerned about our nuclear weapons and the possibility that we will take those weapons into space thereby altering the cosmos and threatening other alien races (Friedman has said this before).

5) Because the aliens are our creators and because they want to help us take the next step in spiritual evolution to become one with them and the cosmos.

6) Because aliens want to help us physically evolve becoming one with them as a hybrid race.

There are others Lorrie, but all of these are claims made within mainstream ufology.

cda said...

Lorrie:

The "old question" you refer to is the question of whether intelligent life exists elsewhere. All right, suppose it does. The Roswell ETHers insist it does exist and has visited earth by way of a (unintended?) crash in July 1947. But ETH is the VERY thing science has wanted to establish for decades, if not centuries, before '47.

What happens? According to the ETHers, the very people who want to establish this, i.e. the scientists, are being denied this knowledge by a few men at the top of the US military. And if astronomers and scientists are being denied this vital knowledge, what chance has John Q. Citizen got of ever finding out?

The conundrum is that we, the people, can never learn about the most important scientific discovery of all time because of the actions of certain privileged USAF generals and maybe some at the top of the intelligence agencies.

At least, that is what the conspiracy mindset ETHers insist has been the case for 69 years, and is still ongoing. Believe that if you wish.

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian: I think it's probably a reasonable assumption, that if aliens are indeed *here*, the simplest answer is that they are explorers of some type (as Paul Hill, author of "Unconventional Flying Objects", believes). If so, these beings might be capable of all, some or none of the traits you apply to them, including tampering with our genes. And, just as likely, they could help humanity, in the same way that more advanced Earth societies help lesser ones. Why is any of that a "bad" thing? Do you think humans are the pinnacle of all creation?

Lorrie Causey said...

CDA: good, reasonable questions/thoughts....

Brian Bell said...

@ Lorrie who wrote:

"...if aliens are indeed *here*, the simplest answer is that they are explorers of some type..."

>> I think somewhere you've already stated "they" are here, or at least have implied it rather directly. Why emphasize the *if* now? Second thoughts perhaps?

As for "them" being "explorers", well that's pure conjecture based on a very human oriented perspective. Humans tend to compare everything to themselves for contextual interpretation. It's the equivalent of rationalizing that if we have interest in arachnids, then aliens must mirror equal interest in a species other than themselves.

I think if intelligent ET's do exist, the chances are "they" are radically different from ourselves. Not just physically, but different in everything - morals, behavior, ethics, and so on.

If that's the case, your friendly little visitors may simply be curious about life on this planet before they exterminate it. I wouldn't automatically assume they're benevolent scientific explorers.

"If so, these beings might be capable of all, some or none of the traits you apply to them, including tampering with our genes."

>> Let's be clear - I've not assigned any traits to "them" because I don't think you've presented convincing evidence "they" are actually visiting our planet. Those traits you so desperately want to attribute to me come from your side of the discussion - from ufologists and their devoted followers.

"And, just as likely, they could help humanity, in the same way that more advanced Earth societies help lesser ones. Why is any of that a "bad" thing? Do you think humans are the pinnacle of all creation?"

>> As I pointed out previously, you assume without evidence they're just like us. And yes, I do happen to believe humans are the pinnacle of creation as we know it. Whether you prefer to think so or not is your business. You're welcome to degrade yourself if you feel so inclined.

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian states: "...I think somewhere you've already stated "they" are here, or at least have implied it rather directly. Why emphasize the *if* now? Second thoughts perhaps?.."

I've never said that. An objective person *always* has "second thoughts". If you are 100% sure that aliens don't exist and further they aren't or never have visited our planet, that means you have access to a level of knowledge the rest of us are not privy to. Are you so certain of yourself..:)..? I think what I actually said about what UFOs *might* be is this: "...some UFOs might be intelligently controlled vehicles from another solar system..". Underline "might" a couple million times. That notion didn't originate with me, but rather with Stanton Friedman, Paul Hill and some others, but that's my basic stance. Naturally enough, given the evidence, or lack of it, my position is a "fluid" one....


Lorrie Causey said...

Brian says: "...As for "them" being "explorers", well that's pure conjecture based on a very human oriented perspective. Humans tend to compare everything to themselves for contextual interpretation. It's the equivalent of rationalizing that if we have interest in arachnids, then aliens must mirror equal interest in a species other than themselves..."

The word you are looking for is "anthropomorphic" I think. But that's a no-brainer, obviously; as a human what else would you compare anything to? No one, not even you, can escape this predicament. What's the alternative, are you going to start viewing the universe through the eyes and experiences of a Praying Mantis?

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian states: "...I think if intelligent ET's do exist, the chances are "they" are radically different from ourselves. Not just physically, but different in everything - morals, behavior, ethics, and so on..."

What's your scientific evidence for thinking that? And remember now, we need hardcore, concrete evidence we can test in a lab, the type of evidence that you demand of others. Or is it "pure conjecture" on your part?

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian states: "...If that's the case, your friendly little visitors may simply be curious about life on this planet before they exterminate it. I wouldn't automatically assume they're benevolent scientific explorers...".

Wow. Talk about a "very human oriented perspective (your exact quote)". Been watching to many 1950's monster movies? I see "them" as explorers and you see them as exterminators. Given what evidence we have, what would make you think that ET is here to exterminate us, other than humans have a penchant and history of exterminating everything from roaches to entire groups of people.

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian says: "...Let's be clear - I've not assigned any traits to "them" because I don't think you've presented convincing evidence "they" are actually visiting our planet. Those traits you so desperately want to attribute to me come from your side of the discussion - from ufologists and their devoted followers..."

I'm a single mind and can't speak for anyone else, not a member of any UFO group or anything remotely similar, so I can't answer for "ufologists". Clearly you want to lump everyone together because it's easier for you to stereotype people; requires less objectivity that way I guess. I'm not in any way "desperate" about UFOs; either they're here or their not and I can live with both scenarios. It seems that maybe it's *you* who feels a type of despair about aliens as they obviously are a matter of great concern to you.

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian states: "...As I pointed out previously, you assume without evidence they're just like us. And yes, I do happen to believe humans are the pinnacle of creation as we know it. Whether you prefer to think so or not is your business. You're welcome to degrade yourself if you feel so inclined...".

I would never assume aliens are just like us; I don't anyone that would. But, if they can fly vehicles from another planet to earth, there would have to be some similarities: intelligence, reasoning capabilities and possibly some motive might be a few. Why do you find it "degrading" if humans are not the pinnacle of creation?

Lorrie Causey said...

CDA: your last post posits these questions:

1.) Would the government keep ET a secret? I'm sure you're aware of the Brookings report...

2.) Assuming they would hide it, *why* would they hide it?

3.) And finally, could they hide it?

Brian Bell said...

@ Lorrie who wrote:

"Given what evidence we have, what would make you think that ET is here to exterminate us...?"

You really need to get out and read more. Many scientists and authors more knowledgeable than you or me believe there's a strong possibility this may be the case. Unless of course you think you know more than these folks do, or consider them people who have "been watching too many 1950's sci-fi movies".

Try this for starters:

>>> Steven Dick, the Baruch S. Blumberg NASA/Library of Congress Chair in Astrobiology at the Kluge Center in Washington, D.C. (SETI)

Quote: (2014)

"We do not yet know enough about the evolution of altruism on Earth, much less among other possible intelligent life forms, to say ETs will all be good. That is a hope rather than a fact."

>>> Michael Michaud, author of the book "Contact with Alien Civilizations: Our Hopes and Fears about Encountering Extraterrestrials," and former U.S. Foreign Service Officer for the U.S. Department of State.

Quote: (2012)

"[SETI] is an attempt to provoke a response from an alien society whose capabilities and intentions are not known to us. There is no scientific or historical evidence telling us that the consequences of contact will be those [we] prefer."

>>> Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology, University of Cambridge.

Quote: (2010)

"Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they could reach. If so, it makes sense for them to exploit each new planet for material to build more spaceships so they could move on. Who knows what the limits would be?"

>>> Nick Sagan, son of iconic astronomer and Contact author Carl Sagan, and Sci-Fi author himself.

Quote: (2012)

"Humans having any kind of sporting chance against hostile alien invaders armed with superior technology, good luck. If they're advanced enough to cross the enormous distances of interstellar space, they're advanced enough to wipe us out without breaking whatever in their physiology passes for a sweat."

So Lorrie, while it may seem more optimistic to suppose that some extraterrestrial intelligence might be "enlightened and peaceful" so as to share their technology to cure cancer, end all disease, or whatever, it seems the opposite may be true.

And since you believe that consistent anthropomorphic evolution could generate human-like species on other planets, you quickly come to realize that like terrans they have a greater chance of being hostile.

Thinking them more likely to be benevolent is fairly naive thinking.

If you look around our own planet, you see that the peaceful "enlightened" societies like the Tibetan Buddhists are routinely overrun (murdered, imprisoned, etc.) by far more aggressive and militaristic societies.

And if look at the history of planet earth (or even just the more recent history of North America), enlightened populations haven't fared very well. Most have been all but eradicated from the face of our planet.

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian states: Quote: (2010)

"Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they could reach. If so, it makes sense for them to exploit each new planet for material to build more spaceships so they could move on. Who knows what the limits would be?"
>>> Nick Sagan, son of iconic astronomer and Contact author Carl Sagan, and Sci-Fi author himself."

I'm not sure about Nick Sagan's education or his standing at as a reputable scientist, so I'm not sure why you quoted him, but I am quite sure about the views of his father, the late Dr. Carl Sagan. The latter was not only an enthusiastic believer in ET, I think he was on the team that designed the famous plaque for the Pioneer 10 space probe, which as everyone knows, not only shows where we are in the cosmos, but what we are. It seems quite certain then, that *NASA*, along with Sagan, may not have had any good reason to assume hostile aliens. Otherwise why put that kind of info on a space probe??? And for your information, I love old "monster movies" like "This Island Earth" and others of that genre, I just don't use them serve as a basis for my feelings on aliens...:)...

Lorrie Causey said...

"...You really need to get out and read more. Many scientists and authors more knowledgeable than you or me believe there's a strong possibility this may be the case. Unless of course you think you know more than these folks do, or consider them people who have "been watching too many 1950's sci-fi movies"..".

If there is an author out there, anywhere, who has direct, empirical knowledge of an alien species and their cultural habits, please clue us in; otherwise what "knowledge" are they using to suggest aliens are hostile? An earth analog is all they have and that's not very impressive. So show us anything that makes a *strong* case for hostile aliens. And please, don't say '...well, in that scene in Independence Day.."....:)....

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian states: "Try this for starters:

>>> Steven Dick, the Baruch S. Blumberg NASA/Library of Congress Chair in Astrobiology at the Kluge Center in Washington, D.C. (SETI)

Quote: (2014)

"We do not yet know enough about the evolution of altruism on Earth, much less among other possible intelligent life forms, to say ETs will all be good. That is a hope rather than a fact."

So the reverse would also be true:


"We do not yet know enough about the evolution of SELFISHNESS on Earth, much less among other possible intelligent life forms, to say ETs will all be BAD. That is a hope rather than a fact."

Change 2 words......checkmate, correct?

Brian Bell said...

@ Lorrie

You can alter someone's words to suit the meaning you prefer, but you can't claim that's evidence to support your position.

More importantly though, I find it interesting you feel more qualified to say someone like Hawking is probably off the mark or simply pessimistic. He supports the theory that ET is out there so again he's technically in your camp, and yet you blatantly reject his conclusions because you think he's wrong for making them. I suppose you want him to present a gun wielding alien as evidence, and yet you have none yourself.

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian states: "...You can alter someone's words to suit the meaning you prefer, but you can't claim that's evidence to support your position..."

Please show who's words that I altered.

Brian states: "More importantly though, I find it interesting you feel more qualified to say someone like Hawking is probably off the mark or simply pessimistic. He supports the theory that ET is out there so again he's technically in your camp, and yet you blatantly reject his conclusions because you think he's wrong for making them. I suppose you want him to present a gun wielding alien as evidence, and yet you have none yourself."

Your approach to everything on here is to act as verbal sledgehammer; I'm sure I'm not the only one here to notice that. No one here has any evidence on the cultural traits of ET.....and yes that includes Stephen Hawking. Do I feel more qualified on this subject than Hawking? Good grief Brian, I couldn't match your hyper-inflated ego in 3 lifetimes.....:)....

Brian Bell said...

@ Lorrie

Keep dancing it's humorous.

You changed Steven Dick's comments and wrote:

"Change 2 words......checkmate, correct?"

So yes, while you state "Please show who's words that I altered.", it's obvious you can't recall yourself.

Additionally you wrote, "Good grief Brian, I couldn't match your hyper-inflated ego in 3 lifetimes.....:)...."

Yes, my ego is so big it's why I answered your silly question by starting off with, "Many scientists and authors more knowledgeable than you or me believe there's a strong possibility this may be the case."

With that I will note we are off topic and need to cease this aspect of the discussion.

Lorrie Causey said...

Brian states: "...With that I will note we are off topic and need to cease this aspect of the discussion..."...

I will agree to that as long as you're willing to admit that I won our debate.....:)..just kidding of course.....