For
nearly thirty years or more, various researchers and experts have been trying
to read the Ramey Memo, believing that it might hold the key to the Roswell
crash. What can be seen easily in the document held by Brigadier General Roger
Ramey suggests that the text does relate to the Roswell case. While some words
are obvious, others are tantalizing close to being read, but are open to
various interpretations.
 |
| The Ramey Memo |
Back
about two decades ago, one phrase that was almost readable, suggested one of
two things. In one interpretation, “victims of the wreck,” suggested a
biological recovery, which, in turn, suggested something extraterrestrial. The
second interpretation, “remains of the wreck,” suggested metallic debris which
suggested something more mundane. Remains was a terrestrial-based answer and
victims could easily be something from outer space.
From
the beginning, those two phrases have been discussed at length. Both emerged
from the start of the search for meaning. Another interpretation appeared just
a couple of years ago, “viewing of the wreck,” which didn’t tell us much, other
than the solution was probably based on Earth. Again, it was just beyond our
ability to resolve the words on the memo.
Back
a couple of years ago, a new, high power scan of the negative of Ramey holding
the memo was made. The idea was to use the latest technology to attempt to read
the new and improved scan. Universal acceptance was just out of reach. The
critical line could not be resolved to the point where the majority of those
interested in it would agree on an interpretation.
Josh
Gates, and those at Expedition Unknown
took a another look at it in 2017. The results by an independent expert
suggested that “viewing” was the critical word, rather than “victims.” Viewing
was seven letters and it made since in the context of the rest of the sentence,
but it just wasn’t the slam dunk needed.
 |
| Josh Gates in the University of Texas at Arlington, Special Collections. Copyright by Kevin Randle. |
Research
continued, with several experts from around the world attempting to decipher
the word and the sentence. Now, a fellow who wishes only to be known as Kaleb,
used SmartDeblur 2.3 PRO
version (trial edition) to enhance these scans.
He has shared the images with very few people and cautions, “No
one else has seen them as of yet, but I am sure they are big enough and strong
enough to make a few waves in the UFOlogy community?”
But to be fair, I can see both “victims” and “remains” in these
new images. And, one of those who worked with us completing the new scans, and
who, I believe has no dog in the fight, wrote:
At the risk of being redundant, Mr. Kaleb is getting farther away
with each iteration. The process he’s using is inherently destructive and
his "new" images are beginning to take on the appearance of written
Sanskrit. Until such time that the images provided … are subjected to a
substitution and comparison algorithm using computers on the order of those
provided to NSA the odds of the memo being any more clear and readable are slim
and none. The Texas University images clearly show sharp and perfectly
clear grain image. There is no "de-bluring" or
"enhancement" to be gained to those files by imaging software of any
design. The very nature of such software destroys far more than it
reveals. Were the images to be subjected to a crypto analysis type
program similar to that of the proverbial hundred monkeys pounding away on
typewriters and eventually writing the complete works of Shakespeare…well, you
get the idea.
Another assessment, from another of those involved in this
problem, provides a little more information. It said:
… assessment I think is fair in terms of our work producing a
cleaner ‘base image’ than previously available and that re-enhancing those
images is going backwards.
But I do believe an approach to correct the topography of the memo
(angle; orientation; perspective fall-off etc) would yield improvements which
Kaleb’s efforts hint at.
If Kaleb (or others) could manipulate the memo without falling
prey to destructive image enhancements - … informed concerns could be address
and the work taken in a more fruitful direction.
While it might be said that progress is being made, and that any
suggestion and attempt at reading the memo provides some insight into what was
happening in 1947, it can also be said that we’re basically at the same place.
There are two interpretations of the memo. One suggests something alien and the
other suggests something terran (yeah, I used a science fiction term for those
of us from Earth… I don’t like earthling).
As for me, I’m a little disappointed that we haven’t made better
progress. I had hoped that our new technologies and new technics would enable
us to make a better run at this. For those still engaged in the work, I have
nothing but respect. The work continues, and I’ll report the findings as soon
as I have them.
57 comments:
so same old thing then. Thanks for the update Kevin, still its nice to see some sort of work going on with the memo, so tantalizingly close but will it ever be close enough.
In my opinion 'viewing of the wreck' doesn't sit right, victims is a better fit, and at first glance was what I thought it was.. but that still doesn't ultimately solve the mystery.
Oh well, back to Oak Island!
Hey Kevin,
Even though we're at different ends of what did or didn't happen at Roswell, there's one thing that has always intrigued me about all this and what the memo means/suggests etc.
It's not the possible word "victims." Rather, it's the word "wreck."
I think that most people would not refer to balloon material as a "wreck."
That word "wreck" suggests to me something of far more substance than a balloon, like a device or vehicle of some sort.
Thank you for the update. However, we are treated to nothing more than an anonymous person claiming to have deciphered the infamous memo revealing some new or miraculous information.
I doubt it.
The memo is not a mystery as some make it out to be. As stated here and previously, J. Bond Johnson's claim that he brought the document into the office with him more or less explains why the piece of paper in Ramey’s hand is not really a classified document at all.
As originally claimed, it’s just a newspaper teletype that Johnson brought with him. Hence it would not be classified at all. No mystery.
Yes, we know that Johnson later repudiated that claim saying that he had picked the document off Ramey's desk so that he would have something in his hand for the photograph.
But of course newspaper men don’t grab things off a senior officer’s desk, and certainly not a classified document with secrets about an alien flying saucer crash.
As you have already pointed out Ramey's aide, if not Ramey himself, would have stopped Johnson from grabbing something off the desk.
So what we have is a newspaper teletype that Johnson gave Ramey to hold in his hand for the sake of getting a better photo — something a bit more staged and dramatic.
Nothing more — nothing less.
Nick -
You make an interesting point about the word wreck, though I could argue that wreck referred to the state of the debris... it was something that had been wrecked.
Brian -
If you read carefully, you will note that I made it clear that this was one person's opinion based on what he had found. He didn't want his whole name used, which, given the nature of the UFO field, doesn't surprise me. I complied with his request because this wasn't the smoking gun and as I said, I could see both words (victims, remains). Had this been something a little more dramatic, there would be more information about the person doing the research. At this point, it wasn't necessary. I was just updating the search and letting everyone know that research was continuing.
As for Johnson, since he also said that he had unwrapped some of the debris, since he changed his tale repeatedly, since he was caught in several lies, I'm not sure that I would rely on anything he said. If what he said was the truth, then this is a newspaper teletype. I just am not convinced that he was left alone in Ramey's office... where was his aide. And not not convinced that a classified document would have been left out in the open with a civilian running around loose. The likelihood here is that it is a teletype and I think that if we could read it a little better, we would know... But as the old prospector said, "You have to look."
Hi Kevin
Yes kinda gotta agree with TheDimov - "so same old thing then".
Still appreciate the teams efforts and it's always interesting to see what work is being done on the memo...
Nick wrote:
"I think that most people would not refer to balloon material as a "wreck."
That word "wreck" suggests to me something of far more substance than a balloon, like a device or vehicle of some sort."
OK - I would have to agree with you on that. Be interesting to see what the "Mogul diehards" have to say...
Regards
Nitram
Ugh... the word "wreck" is perhaps 1000 times more dubious than "Viewing" or "Victims"... and those are very very dubious. Nick brings up such a weak weak point that it likely could only resonate in the truth-adverse community of UFO nuts.
Lance
When the USAF produced their Roswell report in 1995 they reproduced relevant documents, one being the FBI Dallas teletype. This was obtained from FBI archives. We can assume that any such official document relating to Roswell IF IT CONTAINED ANYTHING OF VALUE TO SCIENCE would also have been retained. (OK, I suppose it COULD possibly have been destroyed by accident).
What I am saying is that this "Ramey document", if it contained what the Roswell-ET promoters say it contains, would still be extant. So where is it?
And for that matter, where are all the other myriad of documents that inevitably exist, emanating from this ET discovery (if that be what it was)? Such a matter is far too important for science for all these papers to have mysteriously disappeared.
My conclusion: whatever the Ramey memo says, it does NOT say anything useful to science or to the discovery of ETs visiting Earth. Which is why the original was destroyed long ago.
"My conclusion: whatever the Ramey memo says, it does NOT say anything useful to science or to the discovery of ETs visiting Earth. Which is why the original was destroyed long ago."
Perhaps this is true - the original was destroyed long ago - and of course ET's have probably never visited earth, but a careful analysis of the document could perhaps confirm what did actually happy in July of 1947...
"Nick brings up such a weak weak point that it likely could only resonate in the truth-adverse community of UFO nuts."
No, that's not really fair Lance. I agree with Kevin that the point made is interesting, but not necessarily correct...
"1000 more times dubious than victims" is also incorrect. Yet you have no problem with your mentor going with the theory that Ramey was writing a "sci fi novel".
Regards
Nitram
Brian -
Although I believe you understood that the name of the researcher wasn't necessary at this stage of his work, he felt the need to respond to you personally. Here is what he said:
"Brian B said...
Thank you for the update. However, we are treated to nothing more than an anonymous person claiming to have deciphered the infamous memo revealing some new or miraculous information."
Brian B needs to know, from the horse's mouth, that I am not revealing my entire full legal name at this early stage because I am not working on this project to become some kind of "Celebrity". When the time comes that sufficient progress has been made, I will be more than happy to reveal to everyone and anyone that I was the person responsible for this work. For now, my name is not necessary.
CDA -
You still don't understand the military message traffic. I don't care what the message said, it probably would have been destroyed by 8th Air Force when it was no longer relevant. However, at a higher level, among those who initiated the memo, if it was, in fact, a military document, would have recorded it for posterity. We just don't know who would have originated it which means that we don't really know where to long or with whom to file a FOIA. But the point here is that I wouldn't be surprised if the message that Ramey is holding, regardless of the source, was destroyed in Fort Worth... unless, of course, if Bond Johnson did carry it into Ramey's office, in which case he would have given it back to Johnson.
"viewing"..."victims"..."remains".
It's going to take quite a lot more of that memo to be correctly read in order for it to deliver a knockout blow for either side of the argument, though, for obvious reasons, if "victims" was ever 100% identified, then it certainly would be intriguing.
cda...What I am saying is that this "Ramey document", if it contained what the Roswell-ET promoters say it contains, would still be extant. So where is it?
Chuckle...here we go again.
As I asked you in recent months...do you really, really believe that every correspondence received or sent by military personnel is loyally and painstakingly filed and kept for posterity?
The national archives warehouse would have to be bigger than Australia.
As for the file being taken off Ramey's desk and then handed to him by that "Bond, JAMES BOND!" chap...
Well...S&%t can happen. Mistakes are made. Sod's Law...etc.
Consider (again), just for one minute that the Roswell Incident lore is correct as told.
It would have been something of a stressful morning for the man.
With absolutely everything else that would have been going on in Ramey's head...his phone ringing off the hook from people above and below his command...Wreckage from a space ship in one corner of his office...beaten up balloon wreckage, for use as a cover story, in another corner...a newspaper reporter mithering about getting some photos...not to mention Marcell mithering, saying stuff like "But General Ramey, Sir!!! this ain't what I found at the farm..."
...Then maybe, just maybe, for the split second that it would take...Ramey AND his aide had their eye off the ball and Johnson, fairly innocently, just waltzed to the desk, picked up the memo and handed it to him.
The problem with the "Ramey memo" is that the "signal to noise" is not high enough to clearly read the letters. I don't see how any improvements in technology will resolve this simply because there is not enough data to produce a clear reading. Those trying to read it will run into this technological wall and, as a result, will end up seeing what they want to see.
Sincerely and like many, I would like to see a clear and readability reading of the document. I have a hard time seen a new technology that will be a game changer in this matter being created. I simply don't see a need for software that could perform much better than what wee have now. I don't see why anyone invest a ton of money in software and or hardware that couldn't be done now. It's possible that NASA, CIA or NSA might have a better method now but I seriously doubt they would help.
Further with inkjet and laser printers have gotten so good in terms of readability, if anyone created a new software or method to read old docs taken from a B&W photo today likely wouldn't happen. I simply do see a commercial method that would make sense.
Last, what makes you think there are any documents that remain today after 72 years relating to Roswell? Since it is likely that no one is still alive today that was directly involved in typing up documents about what happened in Roswell, there is more motive to burn all the old documents. That was my thoughts years ago and the same now. I believe that Roswell was a real UFO crash event. But other than the technology and maybe aliens everything else would have been burned and destroyed and nothing on disk or computer chips is still available.
Paul (and Mr Sweepy):
There is of course no certainty that the Ramey memo, if it truly referred to an ET crash, would still be extant, I suggest that its very importance to science (remember this would be the earliest mention of an ET visit to earth in official hands) would make it virtually 'indestructable', i.e. one of those things kept for posterity.
This is the essence of my argument that the Ramey memo, if it contains what the ET proponents say it contains, would indeed still be archived somewhere. Exactly the same would apply to each and every document on the case, including minutes of meetings, reports by scientists, military personnel, analysis of the bodies/wreckage, and so on. There would be literally a myriad of them.
Paul is right that not every official document can possibly be retained for posterity. But I am very certain that all such documents pertaining to perhaps the first discovery of ET life visiting our planet WOULD be kept for historians of the future.
So I repeat: since none of these papers, including the original of the Ramey memo, has ever surfaced, we can assume NO such ET visit took place in NM in the summer of 1947.
And no, such documents are most certainly NOT still under lock & key after 70 years. Kevin knows this, but seems afraid to admit it.
By all means continue with the photo enhancement. But don't expect anything meaningful to extra-terrestrial science to come of it.
Whatever, Lance, whatever....
@Tim, @Sweepy,
I agree that the information has to be there, in the original negative. Digitizing a photographic negative, then applying digital technology isn't going to provide information that's not in the original.
Necessary information -may- be deduced from a microscopic analysis of the grain structure of the original negative, but present digital methods aren't designed to find it.
. .. . .. --- ....
Mr. Randle, I can hardly believe that a military report would bring the word “victims”. This is not a barracks’ lingo, as far as I know. “Casualties” or even “no survivors” would be more acceptable terms for a USAAF memo. That's why I think the word "victims" should not be taken into consideration for a better undestanding of the "Ramey memo".
On the use of the word “wreck” in the Ramey memo:
Assuming the teletype actually contains the word “wreck”, and we still aren’t 100% certain it does, then I can see why some people here believe it’s use implies “something much larger” than say debris from a simple balloon.
But wait — let’s apply some period context to the situation before we suggest that it’s presence there implies “a craft or vehicle of some type” and not something mundane or prosaic.
If you side with the opinion “wreck” implies “a craft of some sort”, I’m inclined to think that you’re concluding (or basing your opinion on) the memo being some sort of “official military correspondence” with a mysterious and highly secretive message.
However, I believe it’s already been established (?) that this memo DOES NOT fit any known officially used formats of the USAAF or other branch of service at that time.
So, to believe the word “wreck” in some way suggests an unearthly object had crash landed is simply to ignore the fact this memo does not conform to proper formats for classified military documents.
So if the word “wreck” is really there, doesn’t that suggest the paper is more likely to be exactly what Johnson initially claimed—a news media teletype he picked up before heading to Ramey’s office?
If so, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the word “wreck” written there. Why?
Because that same day, and even earlier, people in the news media had already assumed what Ramey had was “wreckage”. Isn’t that why Johnson went to photograph it? Didn’t he go to “view the wreck” and make photos of it?
Context matters. The AP (and news outlets) had already been describing this material in terms of “wreckage” based on interviews with Ramey and even some comments made by Brazel.
Just look at the newspaper examples:
8, July: Walla-Walla Union Bulletin, WA
“Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey said Tuesday that a battered object which previously had been described as a flying disc found near Roswell, New Mexico, is being shipped by air to the AAF research center at Wright Field, Ohio.”
9, July: Spokesman-Review, OR
“The bundle of tinfoil, broken wood beams and rubber remnants of a balloon were sent here yesterday by army air transport in the wake of reports that it was a flying disc.”
“But the general said the objects were the crushed remains of a target used to determine the direction and velocity of winds at high altitudes.”
So YES, if the word “wreck” is in the document then it really doesn’t imply anything more than what the material had already been described as by the news media — broken remains of a wrecked weather balloon device.
No mystery.
Hi folks.
First, a question if I may.
Was there any recorded crash of a military vehicle, airborne or roadborne, close before the time of this picture with the 'memo' in it?
Now ... Indeed we are quick to turn to the question of 'what can we fairly assume?' around the time of certain 'ufo events'. These questions and our varied answers to them can lead us into convincing analysis and 'likely' conclusions, whichever side of the debate one sits on.
One thing I will fairly assume is that immediately following the crash of an alien spacecraft which is taken possession of by the military, a level of urgent action by 'authority' will immediately occur in the vicinity of the crash, any nearby military stations, record keeping offices and frantic engagement of local transport services? Am I now to fairly assume that all members of such groups including those of the Roswell base, managed a false appearance of cavalier unconcern and lack of seeming activity that is to be deeply admired by all actors and under-cover operatives ?
Woody:
Your last paragraph says it all. The military would have assumed the crash was of some terrestrial craft (since ET craft were unheard of at this time). Therefore they would have acted in accordance with the procedures for recovery of such, and gathered up fragments and any bodies for later analysis. The ET nature of such a crash would not have been realised for some time, perhaps a few hours or even days later. Then a myriad of outsiders, e.g. scientists, engineers, medical experts etc. would have been involved.
Strange that none of these has ever surfaced. And that none of their reports, minutes of meetings, analyses of debris & bodies has either.
But wait a minute. It is all hush-hush, i.e. Top Secret, isn't it? Even after seven decades!
The thing you have to ask yourself about this supposedly revealing memo is: if it really did contain anything top secret....why would Ramey be taking it to this briefing? To wave it around? Indeed the same thing can be said about the supposed "switched" debris: why show the real stuff in the first place and then switch it? For people supposedly trying to cover things up.....they sure did like tap dancing on the edge of completely blowing it.
"Strange that none of these has ever surfaced. And that none of their reports, minutes of meetings, analyses of debris & bodies has either."
As continuously advised, both important and unimportant events can remain secret forever.
Kevin Randle's tax returns have still not been made public, but that doesn't mean he hasn't paid any tax in the last 50 years.
Regards
Nitram
Thanks cda, I knew you'd get it ! My former career in record classification and security leads me to believe, strongly, that there would be more, much more juicy shrapnel to feel and take record of than was evident after the supposed Roswell 'crash'. Holy shit ... I was supervisor of the main switchboard in my government state, long after people were talking convincingly about 'Roswell' to know that records, even the most innocent recording of meetings and briefings, show much about what was important in the minds of even secretive sections and branches to know that there would be far more trail to follow than exists in 1947 Roswell. Thanks for being here, skeptical brother, even if only to balance the scales against the feature writers and the legions of unthinking believers.
Nitram Ang - should great writers have to pay taxes at all ?
As continuously advised, both important and unimportant events can remain secret forever.~Nitram Ang
Well no, actually the Roswell advocates haven't been able to name one secret anywhere near this magnitude that was successfully concealed for 70+ years.
And that is important to note considering more likely than not (since this was at the beginning of the Cold War) this wasn't just thrown in a closet and forgotten about. It most likely resulted in a reverse engineering project and an on-going administrative review/oversight. Yet no one involved has said a thing. Unlikely.
Nitram is right, of course.
Kevin: Why have your tax returns never been made public? Do you expect us to believe they are of any less importance than the fact that ETs have visited this planet in modern times?
09rja said, "Well no, actually the Roswell advocates haven't been able to name one secret anywhere near this magnitude that was successfully concealed for 70+ years. "
I'm not a supporter of the ET hypothesis of the Roswell crash, but just to play devil's advocate for a minute: what about the Atomic Energy Commissions Radiation experiments in the 1940s? In particular, those that were conducted on non-consenting Citizens. The information on these only come to light because of a mixup in records that were given to a journalist in 1993.
In addition, British intelligence has many records from even WW1 that they will only declassify when they decide they are good and ready to.
I am not saying these measure up to a supposed ET Vehicle crash. But, there are a good deal of things out there which have been kept secret for a good period of time.
09rja: You wrote -- "... the supposed "switched" debris: why show the real stuff in the first place and then switch it?"
According to Colonel (later Brig. General) DuBose, Ramey's Chief of Staff, the real debris material was not on display to the three or four reporters present in Gen. Ramey's office on July 8, 1947. In other words, it was never shown in the first place and the switch was made beforehand.
I am not saying these measure up to a supposed ET Vehicle crash.~Adam S.
My point exactly. Nothing you name even comes close.
According to Colonel (later Brig. General) DuBose, Ramey's Chief of Staff, the real debris material was not on display to the three or four reporters present in Gen. Ramey's office on July 8, 1947. In other words, it was never shown in the first place and the switch was made beforehand.~John Steiger
Well, without getting into that dispute (i.e. whether the "real" debris was photographed or not, according to Jesse Marcel)....they bring debris to Ramey's office (and keep in mind: according to the Roswell ET advocates, they had already decided to cover this up before the debris even arrived) and then decide to clear it out and replace it with fake stuff just before the media is about to be shown this? Again: these guys sure did like walking a tightrope.
I would think that if this was the real deal.....it wouldn't get anywhere near a area where a press conference was about to occur.
Of course, this is the "logic" of this: people bring top secret memos and alien debris to press meetings. And with this kind of handling, it's just downright amazing these guys pulled it off. :)
The most recent comment from 'me', to Nitram Ang, was not sent by me, leading me to believe that hackers are playing with my picture and account, please ignore further messages from 'Woody'.
The issues surrounding the Ramey memo are remarkable similar to the issues surrounding Robert Rines' underwater photos taken in Loch Ness: the originals simply don't contain enough information to be definitive and as a result people see what they wish to see in the enhanced images.
Unless the original is ever released (and for all we know it HAS been released and we don't know it, seeing as we can't really read that scrap of paper in the photo) this probably won't be resolved by image processing anytime soon.
John S:
Therefore DuBose contradicts what Jesse Marcel told Moore and Friedman. Marcel definitely said that one of the photos depicted the actual debris (see "The Roswell Incident") and that the debris was switched afterwards. At that time Marcel was shown only a cropped version of the photo, not the full photo.
General DuBose also originally said the stuff was never switched at all, meaning what appears in the pics is the 'real thing'.
CDA -
DuBose told Don Schmitt, as well as several others, that the stuff was switched. I just wish we didn't have to revisit all this nonsense time and again...
Yes, Marcel said to Moore and Friedman that if he was in the picture, it was the real stuff... HOWEVER, when shown the actual picture, he said that it wasn't the stuff he had brought from Roswell. He made the comment to reporter Johnny Mann of WWL-TV in New Orleans.
Now, we all can go around and around again on this point, but it is clear to me that we're never going to agree on this.
John -
There was a single reporter in Ramey's office, J. Bond Johnson. There is no solid testimony that others were there... But, there were a number of other people in the office besides Marcel, Ramey an Dubose. These people included the PIO, Charles Cashon (if I remember the name correctly and it's just too much trouble at the moment to go look it up because someone will want to debate the point.
Everyone -
Let's stay on topic here.
I agree - let's stick to the topic, which is the contents of the so-called Ramey memo. We seem to be getting nowhere on deciphering this memo, and I predict we never will get anywhere, over & beyond what has already been deciphered (with varying degrees of probability).
Relevant to this topic is the little matter of the likely follow-up to this memo (if it did indeed reveal the great news of the discovery of ETs). Perhaps Kevin can outline to us the most likely follow-up scenario, and whether he still thinks there is still the slightest possibility it contains news that ETs landed on our planet some 7 decades ago.
Bear in mind that astronomers & astro-scientists have been speculating on, and actively searching for evidence of ETs, or indeed any form of life, on other planets, for well over a century. Why have they, and the rest of us, not been informed of the great news?
So Kevin: having examined it at length and brought up the topic several times on this blog, what is your considered view?
cda: Dr. Randle kindly responded to you in my stead re: DuBose and Marcel re: the debris.
In turn, I am going to answer your query to him re: the possibility that "ETs landed on our planet some 7 decades ago," and your claim that "astronomers & astro-scientists have been ... actively searching for evidence of ETs ..."
In fact, astronomers & astro-scientists such as Menzel, Sagan, deGrasse Tyson, etc., have been ignoring the evidence of ETs on our planet for the past seven decades, and in fact, have been lying to themselves and the rest of us in denying the "great news"! Unfortunately you have joined with them ...
"In fact, astronomers & astro-scientists such as Menzel, Sagan, deGrasse Tyson, etc., have been ignoring the evidence of ETs on our planet for the past seven decades, and in fact, have been lying to themselves and the rest of us in denying the "great news"!"~John Steiger
Well no, they haven't been lying. They just haven't found the evidence (consisting of anecdotes, phony documents, questionable witnesses, etc, etc) particularly compelling.
They are not alone.
09rja: on the topic of "...Menzel, Sagan, Tyson, etc...": I'd be willing to bet that Sagan or Tyson never conducted a real investigation of a high level UFO event, so it's hard to take what they say seriously. I recall years ago on the old Art Bell show, the guests were Phil Klass and Don Schmitt. At some point during the Roswell segment, Don asked Klass how many of the Roswell witnesses had he actually interviewed and the latter responded, "none". I think that's probably what you'd get from Tyson...
Lorrie -
Close but no cigar. You are referring to a segment on Larry King - Live. It was Phil and me and I asked the question. I thought he had said, "One." I misheard him but it didn't matter because one is almost as good as none. On watching the show later, I realized he had said, "None."
The Roswell autopsy movie was made using Kodak XX film, marked with a triangle and a square, the film no longer made after early 1950s This film would have expired so could not have been used to make a new fake. Hollywood special effects experts commented that the part where the surgeons cut the alien's scalp which then bleeds, could not be replicated. In any case open theyfly.com for full disclosure. nasa, seti, Govts are not going to give it.
I recall years ago on the old Art Bell show, the guests were Phil Klass and Don Schmitt. At some point during the Roswell segment, Don asked Klass how many of the Roswell witnesses had he actually interviewed and the latter responded, "none". I think that's probably what you'd get from Tyson...~Lorrie Causey
As Kevin pointed out above....it was actually Larry King's show and it was Kevin vs. Phil.
But with all respect to Kevin, I think it's some pretty flimsy logic. (People have tried it here as well.) By that logic no one should write a bio on Abraham Lincoln again because he isn't around to interview. The fact is, I don't have to interview a lot of these people to know there are problems with their stories. (That is unless the Roswell "investigators" are going to say their interviews are flawed.)
In fact many Roswell investigators who touted Jesse Marcel as credible were not the ones who figured out the guy was lying to them about about a lot of things. Some even (originally) endorsed Jim Ragsdale's tall tale. Jesse Marcel was (I think) dead by the time Phil started looking into this anyway.
So given the unreliability of a lot of the witnesses in this thing.....I don't blame Tyson or anyone else for wanting hard evidence.
09rja -
Wrong... To write about Lincoln you need to review all the pertinent information available. In the case of Klass he hadn't done that. He was there, pontificating on the Roswell case and hadn't even bothered to telephone the living witnesses. Even at that point, he could have done that. I think he might have lived on the telephone... or he could have written letters to them requesting information.
So, the point is, there he was, talking about a case in which he hadn't even made a rudimentary attempt to research. Before you begin to talk about a case, shouldn't you, at the very least, review the data and maybe talk to the witnesses first?
Yep, certainly found the Ragsdale tale interesting... but then it was Don Schmitt and me who exposed it. There were a number of us who worked to expose the Glenn Dennis tale. Just sitting there and saying you knew that some of the witness stories had problems is not the same as actually investigating them... and then reporting on those findings regardless of where they went.
Wrong... To write about Lincoln you need to review all the pertinent information available. In the case of Klass he hadn't done that. He was there, pontificating on the Roswell case and hadn't even bothered to telephone the living witnesses. Even at that point, he could have done that. I think he might have lived on the telephone... or he could have written letters to them requesting information.~KRandle
Unless you want to say the large number of interviews that were done with these "witnesses" by people like you or Friedman were worthless.....I'm not sure it isn't fair to say he had "all the pertinent information" as far as interviewing the most important witnesses go.
Yep, certainly found the Ragsdale tale interesting... but then it was Don Schmitt and me who exposed it. There were a number of us who worked to expose the Glenn Dennis tale. Just sitting there and saying you knew that some of the witness stories had problems is not the same as actually investigating them... and then reporting on those findings regardless of where they went.
Well correct me if I'm wrong here but: you originally endorsed Ragsdale right? Or at the very least you presented his tale in one of your books ('The Truth About the Ufo Crash at Roswell') without a hint that he may have been (to be polite here) pulling our collective legs.
That's where critically examining a story should come into play. If a guy tells me something that sounds like it belongs in the checkout stand in the supermarket....he'd better have some darn good evidence.
09rja -
I said, right there in my comment that we had found the story interesting. We found found others who tended to verify parts of what Ragsdale said, including the location that was closer to Roswell. His original story was plausible, given what we knew at the time. It wasn't until he began talking of fifteen bodies wearing helmets made of gold (really? gold? is there a worse metal to have used in a helmet?, and then moving the location and a couple of dozen other problems. He talked of a break in at this house, and we went to the police station to verify that information and couldn't do it (the records for that event, along with all the other records for those years had been destroyed). So, it's very easy to sit here with 20/20 hindsight and criticize, but it is something else to talk to the people in the field. Take a look at the Jefferson airship crash... there is some interesting corroboration based on the timing of newspaper stories that give me fits here. I know the story is faked but I'm still trying to figure out how this was all coordinated in 1897. There had to be a link, but I can't find it and don't think I will given the circumstances.
Well Kevin, the point is: here is a case where the first-hand interviews were done and a supposedly "plausible" story was found.....and turns out the story is false.
Now doesn't that strike quite a blow against the have-you-interviewed the witnesses? nonsense/talking point? You used it with Klass and someone here just tried it with me. (I saw James Fox try it with Michael Shermer as well.)
The fact is, if there are holes in someone's story (and Ragsdale's story needed corroboration from the get-go (it stunk to high heaven)).....I don't need to interview them in order to note that. (Unless someone is saying their interview is worthless.)
09rja -
Well, I guess the next time I talk to a witness of a UFO event, I'll just get in touch and you can tell me if the story stinks or not. The first iteration of the Ragsdale story, given the time and what he said, was not all that implausible... unless, of course, you KNOW there is no alien visitation. Then, of course, the story is unbelievable.
I looked at my original notes, and he had just talked about seeing something fall and the next day seeing the military arrive. He saw the bodies in the distance. And, hey, the Air Force believed him. Look at their Case Closed. They quote from him to prove that it had been anthropomorphic dummies, so I'm not alone in accepting the original tale.
As for corroboration, there was a list of people who corroborated him, if you looked at the book, you'd see that there was some.
And now, since you have decided that interviewing witnesses it worthless, I will stop doing it. In fact, why even bother with investigation. We all KNOW that all these people are lying, so interviewing them does nothing. But, if Klass had been able to answer, "Why yes, I have talked to these people and looked into their stories," that would have been a much better answer than, "None."
Of course, we KNOW, that Klass did make up answers such as deciding that Coyne, et.al. had seen a bolide and Lonnie Zamora had engaged in a hoax with the mayor of Socorro.
So, no, it doesn't strike a blow against against the have-you-interviewed the witnesses? nonsense/talking point? It just proves the bias of those arguing against the point.
But, you just keep plugging away with your biased opinion. Don't understand that it was those of us doing the investigation that PROVED Kaufmann had lied, that Glenn Dennis had lied and that Jim Ragsdale had lied... and that the moment we had that information, we made it public rather than burying it.
Well, I guess the next time I talk to a witness of a UFO event, I'll just get in touch and you can tell me if the story stinks or not. The first iteration of the Ragsdale story, given the time and what he said, was not all that implausible... ~KRandle
He tells you that he [Ragsdale] and a woman who has the same name as a character from air show(s) witnessed a crashed UFO with bodies/dummies.....and that didn't raise an eyebrow? ok.
I looked at my original notes, and he had just talked about seeing something fall and the next day seeing the military arrive. He saw the bodies in the distance. And, hey, the Air Force believed him. Look at their Case Closed. They quote from him to prove that it had been anthropomorphic dummies, so I'm not alone in accepting the original tale.~kRandle
The Air Force was trying to think of some plausible reason as to why people were seeing bodies. The best explanation is: sometimes people just flat make stuff up.
And now, since you have decided that interviewing witnesses it worthless, I will stop doing it. In fact, why even bother with investigation.~kRandle
Not what I am saying at all.
So, no, it doesn't strike a blow against against the have-you-interviewed the witnesses? nonsense/talking point? It just proves the bias of those arguing against the point.~KRandle
The point is ridiculous. (As demonstrated.) I've seen UFO advocates use it a bunch of times.....and it demonstrates the "logic" of this field. Why would anyone have to interview a proven liar?
It probably would be a legit talking point against a full-time UFO researcher. But Klass wasn't, the astronomers named were not, and furthermore: I am certainly not. So, let us retire this one ok? To make the case for something, the average person shouldn’t have to do interviews. I (for example) have never interviewed anyone about Watergate……but I’m pretty sure it happened.
09rja -
I was going to ignore your latest nonsense, because it does no good to attempt to reason with those who will not listen... however...
Twenty years ago Jim Moseley questioned the name Trudy Truelove because she has the same name as a cartoon character (is this really logic in your world?). I, on the other hand, checked the records in Carlsbad, NM, and found the Truelove family. I also found a guy named Rocky Truelove, so I told Moseley that the road to Truelove was Rocky. BTW, it turns out that it wasn't Trudy who had been killed in the traffic accident, it was her sister.
The Air Force didn't say that Ragsdale was lying. They used his statements to Don Schmitt and me as evidence that the bodies had been anthropomorphic dummies. You have changed what they said without evidence that they thought Ragsdale was lying... the fact Ragsdale was lying undermines their argument about the dummies.
Klass was more of a full time UFO researcher than I have ever been. So, no, I am no going to retire the statement because it is true. Why, for example, should I listen to an economist who warns against global warming? What is his expertise? Why should I listen to the geologist who wishes to tell me about the economy?
Again, it is a valid point. If you haven't done the research, if you haven't talked to the witnesses, then your conclusions may not be valid... especially if you (Klass in this case) has set yourself up as an expert in the field. And that is the point. Klass was there to talk about the Roswell case and he hadn't talked to any of the witnesses, he hadn't done the proper research and he rejected some of the witnesses for no other reason than he didn't believe in alien visitation... and I repeat, he was the one who set himself up as the expert.
Now, let's get back to the point of the posting rather than your rant about me (among others) saying that if you haven't talked to the witnesses and by extension, done the proper research, your opinion might not be valid.
Twenty years ago Jim Moseley questioned the name Trudy Truelove because she has the same name as a cartoon character (is this really logic in your world?).~KRandle
Well you have to admit: it would kind of raise an eyebrow....well, with most people. If I told you me and my buddy Stringfellow Hawke were kidnapped by aliens and taken to Mars yesterday....I would hope you would question that one. In any case....
I, on the other hand, checked the records in Carlsbad, NM, and found the Truelove family. I also found a guy named Rocky Truelove, so I told Moseley that the road to Truelove was Rocky. BTW, it turns out that it wasn't Trudy who had been killed in the traffic accident, it was her sister.~KRandle
So let me ask you (point-blank): did Trudy Truelove actually exist (by that name)? Because last year I asked you something about this and you said that "The name was not a pseudonym, but the name supplied by Ragsdale,..." Anything supplied by Ragsdale would (I think) immediately come into question.
Klass was more of a full time UFO researcher than I have ever been. So, no, I am no going to retire the statement because it is true. Why, for example, should I listen to an economist who warns against global warming? What is his expertise? Why should I listen to the geologist who wishes to tell me about the economy?
Again, it is a valid point. If you haven't done the research, if you haven't talked to the witnesses, then your conclusions may not be valid... especially if you (Klass in this case) has set yourself up as an expert in the field. And that is the point. Klass was there to talk about the Roswell case and he hadn't talked to any of the witnesses, he hadn't done the proper research and he rejected some of the witnesses for no other reason than he didn't believe in alien visitation... and I repeat, he was the one who set himself up as the expert.~kRandle
If you want to call Klass a full-time UFO "researcher".....I guess that would be valid point. But I am not....and neither was Sagan, deGrasse Tyson, etc. To say their opinions (or mine) are in question because they haven't talked to people who are clearly lying (or dead), I think reflects very poorly on this field. The bottom line is: you don't have to be a UFO researcher to blow holes in a lot of these stories.....by the interviews done by pro-UFO researchers.
09rja -
This is becoming tiresome. The information you desire was published in The Roswell Encyclopedia (page 283) about two decades ago. Your arguments were covered there, including my interview with Trudy Truelove. Rather than bother me with this, why not attempt to do a little research on your own?
BTW, are you referring to Tess Trueheart rather than Trudy Truelove? Tess wasn't a cartoon character but one in a comic strip? And why not Google the last name of Truelove to see what you can find?
Hi Kevin
Agree - we are going around and around with the same arguments, selecting "facts" to suit a theory...
Unfortunately the debunkers are even more rigid in their beliefs that the ET believers.
An example of such was the idea put forward by Brian Bell sometime ago, namely to try and recreate the photo of Ramey holding the memo.
About a year earlier I had made the same suggestion during a conference call to Kevin and David (I also considered it worthy of consideration).
Within a minute they had explained the problems with my idea, which I accepted.
Despite the problems (which have also been explained to Bell some time ago) he still "refused to budge" on his original position.
Paul Young wrote:
"You're idea...in effect... is to reverse engineer a blank paper into a paper that looks like a paper that no one really knows what is written on it!
It's barking mad.
The remarkable thing about it is that you actually still believe it's feasible. Everyone else can see that it's an exercise in futility..."
So, does anyone have something worthwhile to suggest that might enable David/Kaleb and others to advance matters (in relation to reading that bit of paper) - regardless of whether:
1. The stuff in the photo was switched
2. Some of the witnesses are liars
3. Secrets can be kept for 70 plus years
4. Alien visitation is possible
Thank you
Regards
Nitram
I have nothing "worthwhile to suggest that might enable David/Kaleb and others to advance matters (in relation to reading that bit of paper)".
However, I will "suggest" one thing that nobody else has suggested or seems to want to suggest, and it is this:
That slip of paper in General Ramey's hand cannot, and does not, contain news of anything connected to the discovery of an ET vehicle in the NM desert. The reason for this is that, because of the exceptional nature and scientific value of such a discovery, there would be a myriad of follow-up papers from the USAF, other military units, scientists (military & civilian), politicians, minutes of meetings, and papers from numerous other interested agencies. Further, it is inconceivable that in all this time (70 plus years), all of these papers, including the memo itself, would STILL be in top secret archives. Furthermore, huge numbers of people, including astronomers and scientists in other fields, would by now be "in the know".
Therefore I conclude as would, I hope, any rational, thinking person, that the contents of that scrap of paper are of no interest whatever to science and the general public.
Happy New Year!
cda -
I think we've been over that point in the past. There are some words in the memo that have near universal acceptance, and those words do suggest a connection with the Roswell story.
I believe, at this point, that one of the few things that J. bond Johnson said that was true was that he handed the paper to Ramey as some kind of a prop. I also believe that the paper was a teletype that Johnson brought with him... it was not a military document and therefore is not completely relevant. If we could read the thing, I believe that we'd have a good idea of its origin... but that's just my opinion and is at odds with David and several others. I would like to see this resolved in some fashion but fear that there just isn't enough data available on the film to answer the questions. We'll be locked into speculation forever.
Well since my replies on this whole Truelove affair (i.e. no pun intended) will no longer be posted....I guess we will move on here.....
The reason for this is that, because of the exceptional nature and scientific value of such a discovery, there would be a myriad of follow-up papers from the USAF, other military units, scientists (military & civilian), politicians, minutes of meetings, and papers from numerous other interested agencies. Further, it is inconceivable that in all this time (70 plus years), all of these papers, including the memo itself, would STILL be in top secret archives. Furthermore, huge numbers of people, including astronomers and scientists in other fields, would by now be "in the know". ~CDA
That's the hardest part (for me) to accept. To believe this, you'd have to believe that no Daniel Ellsberg has ever looked at these papers and decided the public has a right to know.
In all the conversation about (meaningless) secrets that are successfully concealed.....that's the part they just don't get.
I'm very new to the Ramey memo...as in brand new. I actually live in Fort Worth about 15 min from the UTA archive where the original negative is kept. So I guess i'm at ground zero for this particular topic.
I'm fascinated by the memo itself. Clearly, it has the potential to expose the truth about what really occurred back in '47. Obviously, the legibility of the words is critical. But it's NOT 100% necessary.
The next best thing would be context clues. This is where the ConText algorithm could have some value. I'm actually a stats professor at TCU so that's my area of expertise.
If anyone would be kind enough to send me the most updated and accurate interpretation of the memo...i can get started on it right away. 👍
Mathlete -
To do so, I'll need contact information. Send that to me at KRandle993@aol.com
Post a Comment