Thursday, May 05, 2016

The Ramey Memo Negative

Since this has become an issue in the last couple of days, and there are those who wonder if the new scans were made from the original negative, I thought this might be of help. Those who traveled to Fort Worth to examine the negative were experts in photography and forensic photographic analysis. Those at the University of Texas at Arlington, who received the negatives from the Fort Worth Star - Telegram, assured us that these were the original negatives, and there is no reason to doubt them.

Others have suggested that the negatives needed to be examined on a light table and under magnification to complete the analysis. This, of course, was done. In the past I have published here, with the permission of the University of Texas at Arlington, photographs of the entire negatives which contain the markings on the edge and the complete, uncropped negative for examination. I will again publish that photograph.

The Ramey Memo photograph, complete with edge markings. Photograph copyright by
the University of Texas at Arlington.
J. Bond Johnson, who took the photograph said that he used a Speed Graphic camera and 4 x 5 negative film. This, I believe, should put to rest some of the questions about this, and provides a complete look at the picture.

23 comments:

TheDimov said...

Thanks Kevin. Its amazing we are able to read any of the memo at all, really. As an aside I was re-watching Jesse Sr's brief interviews on YT and he stated the pieces were mostly small fragments, and it seems the ones in the photo were as large as or larger than the biggest he came across, so it contradicts what he said right there.

Also thanks for the lead in the other blog, Kevin, about 'For The Sake Of My Country', which I hadn't heard about previously, that should be some interesting reading..

Stef Bender said...

What amazes me is the amount of energy focused on the telegram. It might be a note from his wife to meet at their favorite restaurant for dinner. There is not a scintilla of evidence that it is related to the alleged UFO crash and if not it has no bearing whatsoever on the case anyway. Why bother? The debunkers gain nothing if it doesn't relate to the crash. And from the believer's perspective it's not likely to be related and even so the signal to noise ratio is so low it most likely will never be readable. I think it's time to give up. This is yielding nothing!

Nitram Ang said...

Hello Stef

Having read your post the only logic conclusion I can come to is that someone in Britain has hacked into your email address and posted the first thing that entered their mind; under your name.

Good luck with getting it all sorted out...

David Rudiak said...

Stef Bender wrote:
What amazes me is the amount of energy focused on the telegram. It might be a note from his wife to meet at their favorite restaurant for dinner. There is not a scintilla of evidence that it is related to the alleged UFO crash and if not it has no bearing whatsoever on the case anyway. Why bother? The debunkers gain nothing if it doesn't relate to the crash. And from the believer's perspective it's not likely to be related and even so the signal to noise ratio is so low it most likely will never be readable. I think it's time to give up. This is yielding nothing!

What amazes me more is the amount of opinion focused on the telegram by people who obviously know nothing about it after all these years.

Clearer words like "weather balloons" and "disc" unambiguously established this as being about Roswell. That ship sailed a very long time ago. ("Weather balloons" is a unanimous read and "disc" nearly so.) That goes back to about 1985 when researcher Brad Sparks first got a blowup of the message and took a crack at it, reading "disc" and "weather balloons". These word readings were indepenently repeated by others around 1999 and 2000 and forward. Other strongly agreed-upon words like "at Roswell" just further establish this is being about Roswell, not a note from Ramey's wife. (Sheesh! And BTW, Ramey wasn't even married at the time. Next time you naysay, try a note from his bookie?)

The signal to noise ratio is not great, but the message is by no means completely unreadable. Parts can still be read by most by eye. Linguistic analysis and historical context can be used to help pull signal out of noise, as well as other techniques such as statistics from mass reading and computer OCR. There is now a great deal of agreement on what portions of it says.

The most critical word is "VICTIMS", which emerges as top choice by thousands of readers, computer OCR, and a very interesting CAPTCHA experiment by a skeptic where the word was broken into individual characters and made into CAPTCHAS. The letters V, I, I, M, S were the overwhelming choice of some 2000 CAPTCHA readers. The ONLY 7-letter English word with those letters is VICTIMS. There is no way reader bias played any part in the CAPTCHA experiment.

The larger phrase heavily agreed upon is "THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK YOU FORWARDED TO THE (obscured by Ramey's thumb) TEAM AT FORT WORTH, TEX."

So hardly "unreadable" and tells us Roswell did indeed have bodies associated with a wreck, also referred to as "the 'disc'", thus, at the very least, not some simple balloon crash.

Brian Bell said...

@ Stef Bender

Well it's not a note from his wife for certain. And yes I am a skeptic concerning Roswell being an ET event.

1) It's a telegraph and so I doubt his wife would have sent one when she could have called him.

2) The text is typed in all caps and the only thing which really did that back then was a telex machine - few people would have manually typed correspondence in caps.

3) There are words that can be read such as "weather balloons" so unless his wife bought him a dinner on a hot air balloon ride it sure seems to convey something about balloons.

Even so, efforts so far are inconclusive concerning the meaning or whether it really was a classified note or not.

cda said...

Stef:

Thank you!

I have said, semi-facetiously, for some time that the said memo MAY contain the word 'violins' instead of 'victims', and thus refer to a future concert being held at the base. Alternatively, it might even be the draft of an SF novel that Ramey was writing.

We then get ET proponents insisting that it may well contain the greatest untold secret of all time, etc. All right, maybe I was jesting a bit but the upshot is that all this discussion & analysis is, in effect, a waste of time and effort because whatever the text really says (assuming it can be fully deciphered) will be challenged as to its meaning by proponents and opponents. The arguments will go on forever and a day, you can be quite certain. Even the perfectly clear and legible documents that exist are open to different interpretation. If such a document says X there will still be people that claim it really means Y.

Which is why, in the end, the brouhaha over the Ramey memo will get nowhere.

RRRGroup said...

Stef:

It's a minor mystery, Roswell related and is irritating by being so elusive.

Where's the harm in trying to decipher the thing?

RR

cda said...

RR:

Have you any idea why contributor Nitram Ang should say that someone in Britain has hacked into Stef Bender's emails? Nitram says this is the 'logic' (not 'logical') conclusion. But can you think of a good reason why he/she would think it was someone from the UK rather than the US? 'Logic' dictates that there are far more UFO bloggers in the USA than in the UK, and therefore it was far more likely the hacker (if there is one) came from the US, or even Japan.

But nothing is really 'logical' in ufology, is it?

Or do think this discussion is getting totally pointless?

RRRGroup said...

CDA:

Nitram Ang doesn't factor into my consciousness.

As for the Ramey memo, it is a minor quibble in the great scheme of things but a niggling irritant: so close (to deciphering) but yet so far away.

Still, it may resolve a question or two about Roswell or the alleged debris. If it can be deciphered, it should be, just to take one more Roswell oddity off the table.

Kevin and David Rudiak should be commended for pursuing the matter, despite the consternation it raises by those who hate that Roswell still resonates with so many UFO buffs.

RR

Brian Bell said...

@ CDA

Angela Martin's viewpoint has always been UK (Britain) centric. Look back at her posts and they always take that view point. It's as if someone must be English to be credible.

I wouldn't be surprised if she is an SIS/M16 or JIO analyst - and I don't mean that as a compliment.

Opinions so frequently shared with only a harassing and critical tone should only be made by real people not some anonymous bystander hiding behind a fictitious identity for security.

David Rudiak said...

B.B. wrote:
"Opinions so frequently shared with only a harassing and critical tone should only be made by real people not some anonymous bystander hiding behind a fictitious identity for security."

So, in your book, it's OK to be "harassing" as long as you use your real name?

DEFINITION, HARASS: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation; make repeated small-scale attacks on (an enemy).

SYNONYMS: persecute, intimidate, hound, harry, plague, torment, bully, bedevil, pester, bother, worry, disturb, trouble, provoke, stress, hassle, bug, ride, give someone a hard time, get on someone's case.

"Harass" would be a very good description of the M.O. of a common Net troll, designed to disrupt discussion and make the troll the center of the action instead of the topic.

Yes, Brian,a "harassing tone" is a very good description of about 90%+ of your posts. (Or as Lorrie Causey recently put it: "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.") Maybe about 5-10% of what you write is actual, somewhat thoughtful "criticism" or observation, but the rest of the time you sound a lot like a Ufological equivalent of Donald Trump strutting around on stage.

[I am sure "Nitram Ang" is much bemused to be called an "Anglophile" and equated to "Angela Martin" by you. Honestly, didn't have a clue who Angela Martin is and had to look her up (apparently a Scottish "experiencer"). Maybe "Martin Ang", uh, "Angela Martin", and CDA could hook up. Brian could be the Yenta. That I'd pay real money to see.]

Nitram Ang said...


CDA quickly wrote:

"Or do think this discussion is getting totally pointless?"

Yes, your posts are pointless...What amazes me is the amount of opinion you have focused on UFO's when you obviously know very little about the subject after all these years.

RRR Group politely asked:

"Where's the harm in trying to decipher the thing?"

There is no harm of course and you are also correct when you wrote:

"Kevin and David Rudiak should be commended for pursuing the matter, despite the consternation it raises..."

Ramey legend Mr D Rudiak wrote:

"I am sure "Nitram Ang" is much bemused to be called an "Anglophile" and equated to "Angela Martin" by you. Honestly, didn't have a clue who Angela Martin is and had to look her up (apparently a Scottish "experiencer"). Maybe "Martin Ang", uh, "Angela Martin", and CDA could hook up. Brian could be the Yenta. That I'd pay real money to see."

I see you're in a jovial mood David. Had to look up the meaning for Yenta as well...

Regards
Nitram

Brian Bell said...

@ David who hypocritically wrote:

"So, in your book, it's OK to be "harassing" as long as you use your real name?"

Actually no. I didn't write that. But you do like to point the finger in the opposite direction!

So I'll make this brief...

My point was clear, although you missed it entirely. The point is if someone wants to be critical of other people here (like Angela Martin), they really ought to not hide behind a clearly fictitious name (acronym or whatever) for anonymity. That really is the behavior of a "troll".

Now in reviewing your responses to skeptics here, and ones long before I showed up, you will frequently insult their intelligence or make up silly names for them such as "debunker", "skeptibunker" or even enthusiastically endorse Neal's "balloonatic" term.

Being skeptical isn't a crime David, and it doesn't mean a person is stupid or ignorant either. Ufologists are skeptics too. Are you skeptical about the explanation given by the USAF's Roswell Report "Case Closed"?

Yes, so you're a skeptibunker too!

Time to look in the mirror David.

But returning to something more related to this topic let me ask again:

1) Why are you unwilling to do the alternative analysis that I suggested for the Ramey memo?

2) Where is the list of 100 first hand eye witnesses to alien bodies and exotic space material you said existed?

I'd be interested in your answers.

Steve Sawyer said...

So, Kevin, I was wondering if you had considered of late whether another (final?) Roswell book from you might ever be forthcoming? The reason I ask is because it would be useful to see where, sort of like on a "meta-level," where were at in your current opinion on the state of the Roswell evidence as either an extraterrestrial or other kind of possibly advanced non-human intelligence (perhaps native to our planet, ala Tonnies "cryptoterrestrial" speculations) incident.

Since the Roswell "Dream Team" devolved over time, especially the aspect involving the slides, I've always felt that you would be one of the people who should be involved in any such book-length "exegesis" of Roswell, considering also your revisions over time to the story, as you have a fairly objective take on the matter it seems, and an evolved view of the history of how things came about that it would be nice to have someone(s) tell, sort of like how "UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry" by Swords, et al, was presented.

[As long as Schmitt and Carey aren't involved, that is...]

Sort of like how I wish Vallee would author a summation of his long-term research on UFOs/UAPs before he goes... or gets too old. I really think a "compleat" Roswell history, analysis, and presentation of whatever evidence still exists or seems to have reliable provenance regarding Roswell. What say you?

cda said...

Nitram/Martin/Angela:

You wrote:

"Yes, your posts are pointless...What amazes me is the amount of opinion you have focused on UFO's when you obviously know very little about the subject after all these years."

What amazes me is that, apart from consistently spelling your name backwards, you have never once, to my knowledge, contributed anything fresh to this debate (unless it was in a private communication unknown to us). All you seem able to do is criticise others, usually skeptics, for something they said. Never once have you actually put forward any ideas of your own, presumably because you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. One day, when the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, you can inform the rest of us what your views on UFOs (and Roswell) really are. Then we can take notice.

I will take back everything I said above if it ever turns out that you are merely one of the existing bloggers writing under a different name.

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell Bloviated:
1) Why are you unwilling to do the alternative analysis that I suggested for the Ramey memo?

No, it is YOUR proposal, not mine. The proper question is why are YOU unwilling to do such an analysis on your own lousy time and dime? Your oversized ego probably can’t comprehend this, but nobody is obligated to do a damn thing you demand they do.

Paul Young in another thread already pointed out you seem unwilling to do your own work, and also how extremely impractical your proposal was to actually carry out. Try finding equivalent film for a film stock (Ansco Safety film) that disappeared long ago. Just try by hand exactly replicating the lighting conditions of the photo (Speedgraphic flash bulbs anyone? Light fixtures in Ramey’s office?) Try repeatedly replicating by hand the complicated folds, curves, and angles of the Ramey memo. Try figuring out the height, angle, and distance of the camera from the memo.

As I responded to Paul, I have actually ALREADY done much of this work, but with computer reconstruction, since doing it with real equipment would be extraordinarily difficult. I have already spent hundreds of hours on this. How much time have YOU spent Brian on YOUR own proposal. Oh, that’s right—ZERO.

E.g., I accurately reconstructed the photo in a 3-D ray tracer. (Somewhere between 100-200 hours) Among other details, I can determine the height of the camera and distance from the memo. No need to set up a camera and laboriously and expensively take multiple test photos.

I used commercial morphing software to flatten the memo, undoing the folds and curves. The computer can reverse the process, endlessly reproducing those complicated folds, curves, and angles with any version of the memo you want.

That is just a partial list of what I’ve done along these lines. What has Brian done other than talk about it and demand others do his work for him?

2) Where is the list of 100 first hand eye witnesses to alien bodies and exotic space material you said existed?

Well, AGAIN, I NEVER said they were all first-hand. Brian made that up. And I ALREADY provided a long list (several dozen) of such witnesses after Brian “requested” them, first-hand and second-hand, military and civilian, to anomalous debris, alien bodies (or related matters such as small caskets being requested or a special B-29 flight to Fort Worth being met by a mortician), and/or the military recovering a large object, which some referred to as a space craft (but multiple others only saw as a tarped object on a flatbed truck under armed guard being driven to the base). Brian here pretends I didn’t provide anything.

After naming a large number of such witnesses, I then humbly requested Brian name even ONE LOUSY witness to his crashed Russian TU-4 plane or any of his endless “couldn’t have been ET, so must have been a super-secret U.S. project that vanished without a trace" theories. Brian says all his theories are equivalent to the E.T. crash theory, but he can’t name even one witness to back his theories up. Even a politician or a Wall Street hustler will do in the credibility department. We’re waiting Brian.

Paul Young said...

Of course there is another, of the endless problems with Brian Bell's method to end Ramey Memo speculation...
...AKA... "The Bell End Method"...

On completion,(in about 2087)...who decides which of the thousand, or so, reverse engineered memos, is the nearest match to the one we already have!

TheDimov said...

With regards to what Steve said, although I would like to read another book on Roswell but by Mr Randle, I don't see a lot of point to it unless there is something more, for instance an advancement in the Ramey Memo, finding a fragment, etc and doing the research on it, and I think that's exactly what Careu/Schmitt were trying to achieve with their own 'smoking gun'. Never happened of course so they wrote about the effects on the children of Roswell, which whilst a decent read was hardly essential in my opinion.

But I think that's one reason Kevin is pursuing what needs to be looked at thoroughly with the Roswell case, there isn't much left but its all we have, and I think the hi res scans with the memo etc, are exactly what needed to be done after the mummy was quickly identified, oops I mean alien masquerading as a child mummy. I also thought that after the terrific job they did deciphering the placard maybe the memo would be a cinch too... and of course it wasn't to be the case.

Nitram Ang said...

CDA scribbed...

"What amazes me is that, apart from consistently spelling your name backwards, you have never once, to my knowledge, contributed anything fresh to this debate (unless it was in a private communication unknown to us). All you seem able to do is criticise others, usually skeptics, for something they said. Never once have you actually put forward any ideas of your own, presumably because you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. One day, when the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, you can inform the rest of us what your views on UFOs (and Roswell) really are. Then we can take notice."

Opinions on Roswell are not really important - we are looking for "facts".
You still can't understand the difference between a "debate" and an "investigation".

I am not interested "debating" with you or anyone else about Roswell - I am only interesting in discussing it with other serious researchers...

My thoughts are known to a number of the researchers who I respect, including a number of key people, who post on Kevin's blog.

I have never criticised a skeptic on this blog (apart from Lance) as far as I can recall - I have only been less kind to debunkers, some who clearly don't know what their talking about.

Nitram Ang said...

Brian

I think you missed this which I posted earlier - David may not have seen it either:

BB posted earlier in the thread

"Here's a novel construct not even David has attempted.

Instead of trying to reduce the noise within the image to de-blur the text, estimate the size of the teletype and reproduce it using a vintage typewriter with the same font.

Then produce multiple versions using the various words in question.

Then position the examples exactly as seen in the original and take a clear photo of each from the same distance the original was taken - maybe slightly closer as the key is to first produce a clear readable image.

Next take each clear photo and ADD blur and noise to the image with software.

Finally analyze which text best illustrates the original seen in the original negative. Document everything each step of the way so your findings cannot be invalidated.

In other words, reverse your process!

Take a clear replica image and blur it up to see which is most similar to the original."

Not bad Brian, not bad at all.

I did discuss this idea (not exactly the way you put it, but essentially a "reversal process") over the phone with David before the relatively recent trip to Texas to examine the negative went ahead.

There are a number of problems with "my idea" which David kindly explained to me in detail. A lot of it was quite technical in nature and I have no desire to try and put all this done in writing other than to say that the idea has been considered before.

Regards
Nitram

cda said...

Nitram:

You wrote:

"Opinions on Roswell are not really important - we are looking for "facts".
You still can't understand the difference between a "debate" and an "investigation"."

Oh yes I can. You have put "facts" in quotes; a good idea because the 'facts' about this case have been going the rounds since July '47, starting with the press reports at the time.

Since then we have had a zillion books telling us the 'facts'. We have had two USAF reports also telling us the 'facts' (both rejected by the ETHers). We have had conferences, TV shows, magazine articles telling us, again, the 'facts'. Then there was the autopsy film and the slides fiasco. Finally we have had, and continue to have, debates (yes debates) on this forum discussing the 'facts'.

You see there are no indisputable 'facts' are there, beyond the Ft Worth photos and zero hard evidence? Even the photos are in dispute. And the more the debate continues, the fewer solid 'facts' we shall have. Sure, it would be preferable to have an investigation instead of a debate. But after 69 years, further real investigation looks increasingly pointless.

However, by all means, continue in your quest for the elusive Roswell 'facts'. You might, just might, one day astound us all.

John Shirley said...

How anyone could look at that photo, see the framework and material, and not think that's debris from the balloon-lifted Mogul array or something similar, is beyond me.

KRandle said...

John -

It is not Mogul because the flight was cancelled. Is the debris shown in the picture a neoprene balloon and the degraded remains of a rawin target. Of course. Are we arguing over semantics? Yes.