tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post282653735018232276..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: The Ramey Memo - The Latest InformationKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9689349318382749862019-12-24T09:06:05.392-08:002019-12-24T09:06:05.392-08:00Mathlete -
To do so, I'll need contact inform...Mathlete -<br /><br />To do so, I'll need contact information. Send that to me at KRandle993@aol.comKRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46590276106356609382019-12-23T22:57:14.524-08:002019-12-23T22:57:14.524-08:00I'm very new to the Ramey memo...as in brand n...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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. 👍Mathletehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16296182573381782571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73901650858377298402018-12-31T10:46:18.641-08:002018-12-31T10:46:18.641-08:00Well since my replies on this whole Truelove affai...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.....<br /><br /><i>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". </i>~CDA<br /><br />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. <br /><br />In all the conversation about (meaningless) secrets that are successfully concealed.....that's the part they just don't get. 09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-83145984006923147362018-12-29T11:18:20.969-08:002018-12-29T11:18:20.969-08:00cda -
I think we've been over that point in t...cda -<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77101738549863565722018-12-29T07:36:11.002-08:002018-12-29T07:36:11.002-08:00I have nothing "worthwhile to suggest that mi...I have nothing "worthwhile to suggest that might enable David/Kaleb and others to advance matters (in relation to reading that bit of paper)".<br /><br />However, I will "suggest" one thing that nobody else has suggested or seems to want to suggest, and it is this:<br /><br />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". <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Happy New Year!cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56852559156065015882018-12-27T18:36:19.081-08:002018-12-27T18:36:19.081-08:00Hi Kevin
Agree - we are going around and around w...Hi Kevin<br /><br />Agree - we are going around and around with the same arguments, selecting "facts" to suit a theory...<br /><br />Unfortunately the debunkers are even more rigid in their beliefs that the ET believers.<br /><br />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.<br />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).<br />Within a minute they had explained the problems with my idea, which I accepted.<br /><br />Despite the problems (which have also been explained to Bell some time ago) he still "refused to budge" on his original position.<br /><br />Paul Young wrote:<br /><br />"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!<br /><br />It's barking mad.<br /><br />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..."<br /><br /><br />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:<br /><br />1. The stuff in the photo was switched<br />2. Some of the witnesses are liars<br />3. Secrets can be kept for 70 plus years<br />4. Alien visitation is possible<br /><br /><br />Thank you<br />Regards<br />Nitram Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90281069491173574322018-12-27T17:56:31.494-08:002018-12-27T17:56:31.494-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65492169774778496582018-12-27T04:56:53.505-08:002018-12-27T04:56:53.505-08:0009rja -
This is becoming tiresome. The informatio...09rja -<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-20474916094306450702018-12-26T15:58:42.216-08:002018-12-26T15:58:42.216-08:00Twenty years ago Jim Moseley questioned the name T...<i>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>~KRandle<br /><br />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....<br /><br /><i>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.</i>~KRandle<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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?<br /><br />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.</i>~kRandle<br /><br />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.....<b>by the interviews done by pro-UFO researchers</b>.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17092837036825032732018-12-26T14:58:56.593-08:002018-12-26T14:58:56.593-08:0009rja -
I was going to ignore your latest nonsens...09rja -<br /><br />I was going to ignore your latest nonsense, because it does no good to attempt to reason with those who will not listen... however...<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22162060063208808572018-12-26T10:17:00.540-08:002018-12-26T10:17:00.540-08:00Well, I guess the next time I talk to a witness of...<i>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... </i>~KRandle<br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i>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.</i>~kRandle<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>And now, since you have decided that interviewing witnesses it worthless, I will stop doing it. In fact, why even bother with investigation.</i>~kRandle<br /><br />Not what I am saying at all. <br /><br /><i>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.</i>~KRandle<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-64478174177876845262018-12-26T09:26:14.143-08:002018-12-26T09:26:14.143-08:0009rja -
Well, I guess the next time I talk to a w...09rja -<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-34860495762977789912018-12-24T15:34:34.294-08:002018-12-24T15:34:34.294-08:00Well Kevin, the point is: here is a case where the...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. <br /><br />Now doesn't that strike quite a blow against the <i>have-you-interviewed the witnesses?</i> 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.)<br /><br />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.) 09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-85958464057037593992018-12-24T14:29:25.780-08:002018-12-24T14:29:25.780-08:0009rja -
I said, right there in my comment that we...09rja -<br /><br />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.<br />KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33097954160503702192018-12-24T10:18:55.281-08:002018-12-24T10:18:55.281-08:00Wrong... To write about Lincoln you need to review...<i>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.</i>~KRandle<br /><br />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 <b>had</b> "all the pertinent information" as far as interviewing the most important witnesses go. <br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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 ('<i>The Truth About the Ufo Crash at Roswell</i>') without a hint that he may have been (to be polite here) pulling our collective legs. <br /><br />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.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-85660827352039329052018-12-24T09:15:26.353-08:002018-12-24T09:15:26.353-08:0009rja -
Wrong... To write about Lincoln you need ...09rja -<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-79616657900908819992018-12-24T06:09:27.872-08:002018-12-24T06:09:27.872-08:00I recall years ago on the old Art Bell show, the g...<i> 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...</i>~Lorrie Causey<br /><br />As Kevin pointed out above....it was actually Larry King's show and it was Kevin vs. Phil. <br /><br />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.) <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-18333221832694970392018-12-23T05:55:32.718-08:002018-12-23T05:55:32.718-08:00The Roswell autopsy movie was made using Kodak XX ...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.ThomasThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04064637716278243032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82864417133787683892018-12-23T05:01:03.747-08:002018-12-23T05:01:03.747-08:00Lorrie -
Close but no cigar. You are referring to...Lorrie -<br /><br />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."KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17547893351375947562018-12-22T22:53:20.556-08:002018-12-22T22:53:20.556-08:0009rja: on the topic of "...Menzel, Sagan, Ty...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...Clarencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17950970228169491036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9767712480063054312018-12-20T05:32:14.828-08:002018-12-20T05:32:14.828-08:00"In fact, astronomers & astro-scientists ...<i>"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"!"</i>~John Steiger<br /><br />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. <br /><br />They are not alone.09rjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354154308391968845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-78154280260312251772018-12-19T19:36:05.374-08:002018-12-19T19:36:05.374-08:00cda: Dr. Randle kindly responded to you in my stea...cda: Dr. Randle kindly responded to you in my stead re: DuBose and Marcel re: the debris.<br /><br />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 ..."<br /><br />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 ...John Steigerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10038697365721558826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-79688468533569959232018-12-19T11:48:02.313-08:002018-12-19T11:48:02.313-08:00I agree - let's stick to the topic, which is t...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).<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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? <br /><br />So Kevin: having examined it at length and brought up the topic several times on this blog, what is your considered view?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33527876635733088932018-12-19T09:47:28.618-08:002018-12-19T09:47:28.618-08:00CDA -
DuBose told Don Schmitt, as well as several...CDA -<br /><br />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...<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />John -<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Everyone -<br /><br />Let's stay on topic here.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-287316097588143132018-12-19T08:18:08.392-08:002018-12-19T08:18:08.392-08:00John S:
Therefore DuBose contradicts what Jesse M...John S:<br /><br />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. <br /><br />General DuBose also originally said the stuff was never switched at all, meaning what appears in the pics is the 'real thing'.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.com