David Rudiak's Latest on the Ramey Memo

(Blogger’s Note: David Rudiak has supplied his analysis of what Kaleb wrote about his work on the Ramey Memo. I thought that David’s analysis would be of interest to those who visit here regularly. I also believe that it seems we have not progressed beyond where we were which is to say that there is no consensus. Following is what David wrote in response to Kaleb.)

1. Why the extremely low resolution (only about 11 pixels wide/character when our best scans are at 10 times that)?  There may be reasons to use reduced resolution because of limitations in software, time, or computer power (or increased resolution doesn't make it more readable), but resolution should definitely not be dropped _this_ much. Any final Ramey memo should be at least 3 or 4 times more resolution than these last results by Kaleb.

2.  As a corrollary of #1, such low resolution will _necessarily_ introduce artifacts by eliminating higher detail.  Thus, e.g., an "S" in the word "DISC" got blurred/smeared into the letter "O" (in Kaleb's most smeared version) and we are informed by him that it is 
definitely an "O" and the word definitely isn't "DISC".  Really?  Well what is it then?  Besides the fact that just about everybody else who has ever studied the memo now agrees the word is "DISC", is Kaleb aware of the historical context of this message?  1) How the word "disc" was a brand new use of the word to describe the strange flying objects being reported the previous 2 weeks, 2) As a result was frequently placed in "scare quotes" to indicate the new, unusual usage, and  3) Roswell base and Gen. Ramey both putting out press releases and _public_ statements actually using the word "disc" to describe what was found, transported to Fort Worth, and displayed in Ramey's office. Thus, no reason why it shouldn't also appear in an internal message about Roswell. I've attached an example newspaper front page with articles using DISC to describe Roswell, sometimes in quotes, sometimes not.

There is no question in my mind and most other readers of this message that the word is indeed "DISC" (in quotes). The proper way to try to interpret this message is to bring ALL information to bear on it, including historical context and linguistic analysis, and not just twiddle computer processing dials to the point that all sorts of artifacts can be introduced and muddy the waters.  If Kaleb wants to continue to claim that the word isn't "DISC" but "??O?", then he needs to provide a four-letter word there with the "O" that makes grammatical, semantic, and historical sense and isn't just a bunch of gibberish.

(Incidentally I've scientifically tested this word and many other words against the original teletype font using a cross-correlation tests, which creates a degree of match between the original letters and the degraded one.  In the case of "DISC", both the "I" and "S" tested as #1 probability letters, whereas "O" came out around #7 in the 3rd letter position.  So, it isn't just my say-so or others opinions that agree that the letter is really "S".

To illustrate the degradation of the image and how this has created an artifactual "O" in place of an "S", I've created a graphic with comments (2018 DISC image comparisons.jpg) showing two of Kalebs images plus an old one of mine off of one of my original 8x10" prints, and one of our 2015 ScanPro 3000 scans.  Notice the huge difference in image sizes and letter quality.  Going to such low resolutions is going backwards, not forwards.  Kaleb's alternate image which he says retains some of the fine grain is better, but still much poorer than images I was obtaining off of blow-up prints almost 20 years ago. (see graphic again).

3. What's the purpose of re-rotating the message when our best scans on the ScanPro 3000 had the message about as horizontal as overall possible?  Rotating the text away from horizontal only makes the message harder to read, not easier.

4.  Ditto all the other crap all around the message.  Remove it.  We don't need to see Gen. Ramey's thumb twice, rotated and unrotated, nor some mystery protractor dial. What's the point of leaving this stuff there?

5.  Why is there no correction for perspective, which squashes down the letters typically by about 50% in the vertical direction?  NOT doing this can change the appearance of letters into something else?  E.g., with the letters compressed, a capital "V" in normal proportion can be squashed down and appear as a small "r" to some people.  I'm also wondering if Kaleb is aware that the message is all-caps teletype font, and there will be no small "r"s or other small letters in the message, and it certainly isn't a mix of cap and small letters.

6.  As an example, I've taken Kaleb's latest rendition which he says retains some of the fine grain (and IMHO is thus more readable than the first examples where the letters are more smeared) and done the following:  1.  Rotated about 30 degrees back to the horizontal position; 2.  Cropped away all the unnecessary and distracting junk around the message;  3) Stretched the message 50% in the vertical direction to make the letters closer to the true proportions of teletype font; 4) Done a simple lightening function.  See second attachment.  Just very basic, simple stuff that took about a minute to do.  That's the basic format I want to see this message at in the end, not rotated obliquely, not squashed down, not with a lot of other unnecessary things there.  And also at much higher resolution.

7.  I've also attached one of my lighter version, full resolution attempts (from our ~10000 pixels wide scans) at flattening and straightening out the message), which (ideally) corrects for perspective distortion and letter distortion, makes all letters equally sized and spaced (as is true for impact printer, non-proportional font, which is what Teletype font is), straightens out all the lines and edges of the paper, and gets rid of the folds.  I used the morphing program Abrosoft 
Fantamorph 5, which is capable of handling such large files.(I did this work about a year and half ago and haven't been able to get back to it because of many pressing personal matters.  I thought everyone here was aware of it.)

As in ALL image processing, there are again artifacts introduced by this, particularly smearing of very distorted letters where there is a lot of perspective distortion, such as the top of the page above the top fold, the center of the page in the middle fold, and at the left where Ramey's thumb is warping the left margins of the paper (and shadow is making it very difficult to see exactly where the letters actually are). Also where the letters and words aren't clearly visible, it takes some educated guesswork as to where they are, which affects the warp model.  But overall, this I consider to be a much better rendition of the memo. Once I get a warp model, I consider good enough, it can be applied to all the various lightness levels of a particular sequence of Scanpro scans to try to extract more information.

E.g., a lighter scan might be used to try to make out anything in the shadows, whereas darker scans help bring out the more visible letters in the middle of the memo.  And you guys seem to have methods of mixing the various light and dark scans to try to suppress film grain.  This I think would be better done on the flattened, straightened images.  But don't overdo it. Making the message clearer to read is the primary goal, not getting rid of a maximum amount of grain (which can very easily be done just by cropping it out between lines and between words). Remove too much grain and letter detail is also going to get compromised.It is clear Kaleb is very dedicated and put in a lot of hard work into this, much more so than the average person.  But so far, I don't see the results getting better. Indeed, let's get back to basics, which should include higher resolutions, emphasis on letter clarity and retaining necessary detail, straightening things out, and keeping them properly proportioned.

It might also help me if Kaleb's methodology was provided.  Currently I don't have a clue how he is approaching this.

The Ramey Memo - The Latest Information

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.

Josh Gates, the Ramey Memo and Me

As many of you know, I have been involved for years in an attempt to decipher the Ramey Memo. Many consider this the “smoking gun” which will prove that aliens have been visiting Earth. The problem is that the Memo is just beyond the range of our ability to read most of it. There have been various interpretations about what it says but there isn’t much in the way of consensus.

Me on the left and Josh Gates on the right. All photos on the
blog are copyright by Kevin Randle.

Last spring, I was contacted by the producers of Expedition Unknown starring Josh Gates. I have, over the last several years turned down opportunities to appear on various television shows, but this one had Josh Gates. I had been watching him since he had been doing Destination Truth on the Sci Fi Channel, now called Syfy for some reason that I don’t understand. (Well, maybe it was to move them from Science Fiction into some other realm so they could air programming that isn’t really Science Fiction.)

Expedition Unknown was going to do a segment on the Ramey Memo and asked for my help. My first thought was to tell them to call David Rudiak. I mentioned that David had spent years in his analysis of the Memo and would have some interesting insights into it. I told them that he had been to Fort Worth, to the Special Collections at the University of Texas at Arlington Library, in his attempts to read the Memo.

Josh Gates and Brenda McClurkin in the cold vault
reviewing the filing system for the negatives
kept there.

I don’t know if they contacted him or not, but they did say they would like me to help them. I told them that Brenda McClurkin, at the library was the person they needed to contact. I think they might have already chatted with her about getting into see the original negative of General Ramey holding the Memo. I also mentioned that here was a document with a provenance that could be clearly established. I mean, Ramey is holding it in his hand and we have a documented date for the photograph.

The producers arranged for me to meet Josh Gates at UTA to review the Ramey Memo scenario. On the morning that we were to go to the Special Collections, I was in the lobby waiting for a ride and began talking with Michael Primeau, who had been hired for the forensic analysis of the Memo. He had used the latest of the scans, supplied by UTA, but that had been created by David Rudiak and another team as part of another attempt to clarify the message on the Memo. That had taken place about two years earlier.

Josh Gates and Michael Primeau in the Library at the University of Texas, Arlington.

While we chatted, Michael mentioned that he didn’t know anything about the context of the Memo, only that he was asked to determine what he could see. The thinking had been to avoid bias. Yes, context is important when attempting to validate a document, and certainly context can help provide clues about what a document said if the lettering was obscured in a fashion similar to that on the Memo. We had learned years ago that priming, that is, giving people a little information about the Memo did influence their interpretation of it. That influence wasn’t universal, but it was a factor.

Cold Storage filing system in the basement of the library.

We did tour the cold vault where the negative is kept. It is filed with somewhere between 4 and 5 million negatives, some of them going back to the beginnings of photography in the late 19^th century. The cold is said to help preserve the negatives, especially those that are so old. People at the library had noticed that some of the older negatives were beginning to deteriorate, so the facility was created that should kept them in good shape for the next several centuries.

But, of course, the real interest was in what the negative had revealed on those earlier scans that had been made with Brenda and David contributing to the process. It had taken several days to get

Entrance to the Special Collections at UTA.

those necessary scans in that earlier attempt, and then Michael had subjected those scans to forensic analysis using his equipment. I want to make it clear that this is what he does for a living and has testified in various courts about his work and how his analyses had been made and his professional interpretation of the results. He is one of those expert witnesses that you often hear about.

The critical word or phrase, the one that had been identified by many of those who have looked at the Memo, is “victims of the wreck.” Others, in the last few years have suggested the critical word, “victims,” is actually, “viewing.” The difference in the two is important because one implies a flight crew who would be the victims and the other suggests that officers at the scene had merely viewed the wreckage. You can read about this in earlier postings at:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/search?q=viewing+the+wreck

(The problem is that this actually brings up several different articles about the Memo. To get to the specific article, just type “viewing the wreck,” into the search engine on the blog and that should narrow it down to the main article.)

This question, was it victims or viewing, was the one that interested me the most. True, Michael had clarified, to his satisfaction, other aspects of the Memo, much of it merely the mundane language you would expect in a military teletype message. But he was convinced that “viewing” was the correct word.

I add parenthetically, that I found the lack of military jargon in the Memo a little disturbing. I mean, I have seen documents so filled with jargon that they were nearly incomprehensible and others that contained little or no real jargon. I just mention this because it is one of many considerations.

While we were there in the Special Collections area of the library, sitting behind Michael’s computer and watching as he changed filters and manipulated the Memo with contrast and the like, I saw the word “viewing” clearly, but as he changed things, I could also see the word “victims.” Not overly helpful from my point of view and certainly not answering the question.

That seems to be where we are on this. I give the nod to “viewing,” simply because it seemed to be clearer on some of the filtered images. “Victims,” was often less clear, but then, there are those who believe they can make a case for it. It was interesting to watch as Michael took us through his analysis, it was interesting to see the cold vault where the negative is stored and it was nice to meet, in person, some of the people I had talked with and emailed over the years but in the end, we only moved a little closer to an answer about the content of the Memo which had been the point. Unfortunately, there just wasn’t a consensus on some of the critical words and we are left with the hope that at some near future date the technology will improve to the point where we can see, clearly, what the Memo says. 

The CIA and the Ramey Memo

Since it has come up in the discussions here a couple of times, I thought I would identify that high-power government lab that was supposedly involved in an effort to decrypt the Ramey Memo. According to Colonel Richard Weaver, who answered my question about it without reservation, it was the National Photographic Interpretation Center which was part of the CIA back in 1994. I filed a FOIA request with them and received a fairly rapid response.

I told them that I was requesting information, documentation or anything relating to an examination of a photograph taken of General Ramey in July 1947, and that had been submitted to them for analysis by the Air Force in 1994. They responded writing, “This is a final response to your 17 January 2015 Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, received in the office of the Information and Privacy Coordinator for ‘information on an examination of a photograph taken on July 8, 1947, submitted to the National Photographic Interpretation Center (now National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) by the Secretary of the Air Force Office (Colonel Richard Weaver) in 1994.’”

They let me know that the CIA is not the repository for records of other government agencies, which, of course, I already knew. The request had gone to them because the National Photographic Interpretation Center had been part of the CIA at the time. By the time I filed my request it had become the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and fell under the auspices of the Air Force. The CIA supplied the names of the FOIA program managers at both the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and for the Air Force. Good information and helpful and I, of course, filed the requests on the day I received the letter from the CIA.

But then the CIA had to get snarky. They wrote, or rather John Giuffrida, who was the acting information and privacy coordinator wrote that “For your information, the CIA was not created until September 1947 [emphasis in original] and material prior to that date would be contained in the records of the Office of Strategic Services and other predecessor organizations of the CIA.”

All well and good, but I wasn’t asking about something that had taken place in 1947, but had occurred in 1994. The parent organization of the National Photographic Interpretation Center was the CIA. Had I wanted information that preceded the creation of the CIA, I would have communicated with the National Archives, but I would have also asked the CIA because September 1947 was a reorganization of the intelligence community and not the creation of a brand new organization.

Anyway, I did send a request to the Air Force and received a quick response from them, handing me off to another organization. The FOIA manager, who is not identified, wrote, “…we are not the correct office to submit your request.”

And I sent a request to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and received a quick response from them. They wrote, “Our extensive search of National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency records failed to identify any documents in our files that are responsive to your request.”

What does all this mean?

Not much really. I suspect that the attempt to read the Ramey Memo was a just part of the exercise and that the Air Force had expected the results they received. I don’t believe much of an attempt was made to read the memo, that someone might have looked at it with a magnifying glass or under some form of magnification. But rather than guess at their mission, here is what they say that they do:

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency has a responsibility to provide the products and services that decision makers, warfighters, and first responders need, when they need it most. As a member of the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense, NGA supports a unique mission set. We are committed to acquiring, developing and maintaining the proper technology, people and processes that will enable overall mission success.

Geospatial intelligence, or GEOINT is the exploitation and analysis of imagery and geospatial information to describe, assess and visually depict physical features and geographically referenced activities on the Earth. GEOINT consists of imagery, imagery intelligence and geospatial information.

Department of Defense and government customers with CAC cards should go to https://www1.geoint.nga.mil.  First time users must first register their PKI/CAC credentials with NGA. 

 Go to: https://pki.geo.nga.mil/servlet/RegistrationForm.  You have to fill out who you are, command, supervisor (name/phone/email), and security officer (name/phone/email).  When submited, [sic] the registration request is sent to your supervisor and security officer for approval then to NGA to be registered.  Once registered, you'll be able to access our NIPR site and have access to NGA products and services.

Or, in other words, they aren’t in the business in attempting to read an obscure document from more than a half century ago. Their mission has a more timely and real world component and I suspect that the Air Force submitted the material to them so they could claim due diligence. The Air Force could say that “we used a high-powered lab and they were unable to read the memo.”

What does this mean?

Probably one of two things, neither of them important. First the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency didn’t spend a lot of time trying to read the memo. Someone may have looked at it, couldn’t make out much and quit. They told the Air Force they couldn’t read it which made the Air Force happy, and that was the end of it.

Second, I don’t view this as a cover up but as one governmental agency asking another if they can help and in the end the second agency said, “No.” It wasn’t their job to decipher cryptic notes on a piece of photographic film from a half century earlier. The Air Force could report the failure and move onto other things.

Of course, I made the rounds, going from the CIA which was originally the parent organization of the National Photographic Interpretation Center to the Air Force and then to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and never did get a good answer. They only told me that they had no records, and given the nature of the request from the Air Force, I don’t find that strange.

The point is that I was given the name of that high-power lab by the man who would have known, made the FOIA requests, got a typical run around, and have nowhere else to go. I could appeal, but what will they say? “Well, we looked again, even harder this time but we could find no documents responsive to your request.”

Now everyone knows the name of the lab and a little of the history that goes with it. There really is nothing of importance here, other than we did attempt to find any documentation but in the big bureaucracy that is the US government, you need a really big shovel to sift through all the crap.

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.

Viewing vs Victims of the Wreck

It’s funny how things sometimes work out. The investigation into the Ramey Memo seemed to have stagnated with nothing to really report. Then Rich Reynolds publicly wondered what was happening, so I finished up the post about it. And now, I have received both publicly at this blog and privately a number of emails about it, suggesting the critical word in that critical phrase might not be “victims.”

David Rudiak will tell us that the word “victims” has the right number of letters, and that words that begin with a “V” that fit with his word count and positioning are very few. Many can be eliminated because they are simply too strange to fit into Memo (violins, for example) because we can deduce the subject matter based on the words that are universally accepted as being in the text.

The Ramey Memo. Copyright by the University of Texas at Arlington.

Several have suggested that the word is not “victims but is “viewing.” It does contain the right number of letters and it does begin with a “V,” but it also alters the importance of the Ramey Memo if that is correct. “Victims of the wreck,” suggests casualties which implies a crew and that crew could be alien, depending on the rest of the Memo. However, “viewing the wreck,” tells us nothing about a crew and means that we might have something that had no organic component (which is my way of avoiding saying it was either alien, human or animal). And David will suggest that “viewing” doesn’t fit into the proper alignment of the letters eliminating it.

If it is “viewing,” then what we have is a suggestion that someone (Marcel and Cavitt?) had seen the wreckage, but doesn’t suggest anything extraordinary about it. The idea that it was “wreckage” does suggest something other than a balloon array no matter how exotic, because you just don’t think of balloon remains as being wreckage. That term suggests something more substantial was seen but that doesn’t take us to the extraterrestrial by any means.

In fact, if the word is “viewing” it sort of sucks the life out of the drama here. It could say all sorts of things, including “disc” and still provide a rather mundane answer. Given that this seems to refer to a flying disc and given that the term, “flying disc” meant any number of terrestrial based objects as well as the idea they might be interplanetary (as opposed to interstellar), we wouldn’t have the smoking gun that many thought it would be. Or, in other words, we have a rather mundane message telling Ramey that those “viewing the wreck” were reporting what they had seen.

Oh, it could mean that their opinions suggested something alien, but in the long run, we’d be left with the same arguments about the overall importance of the Memo.

And I will mention here, as sort of a cautionary tale, that J. Bond Johnson, who took the photograph that we’re all so interested in, claimed, at one time, he had carried the document into Ramey’s office and handed it to him. That would mean that this was a teletype message that went out over the news wire and wasn’t something generated by the military. True, he recanted that statement as soon as it became clear to him that it lessened the importance of the document, but it is a claim that he made (many of which were later found to be untrue).

Here’s where we are. There are a growing number of people who say that the word is “viewing.” Those suggesting this are not only those on the skeptical side of the fence, but some who believe the Roswell crash was alien, and a few who seem to be disinterested in the crash as an alien event but are interested in solving the riddle.

Again, I’m not sure if we’re ever going to be able to resolve this to the satisfaction of the majority in the way that the Roswell Slides Research Group was able to resolve the placard to nearly everyone’s satisfaction. I had hoped for a resolution, as did those working on this latest effort, but we just haven’t reached that point yet. As it stands now, most of the message is just beyond our capabilities to decipher it though there is still work being done. Maybe next week, next month or next year there will be a breakthrough but I’m not overly hopeful about that. We are stuck with a tantalizing clue that is currently just out of reach.

Ramey Memo Update

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

So, to keep Rich Reynolds happy (and he could have sent an email), to prove that we are hiding nothing, and to note that I had planned to publish something now

Ramey holding the memo. Photo copyright by University of Texas at Arlington, scan made
in April 2015.

that we have reached the one year point (but given Game of Thrones started season six Sunday night I was delayed) I thought it time to update all this. We have tried, after all, to keep everyone alerted, provided all who wanted them the scans so that they could bring their expertise to bear, and made sure that any one of those on the skeptical side of the house who wanted scans got them, nothing has changed radically.

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

David Rudiak, at his website, has published his best interpretation of the Ramey Memo. We can find hundreds who will say that they can read the memo and we can find just as many who disagree with any of the interpretations offered.

Several weeks ago, I asked if it wasn’t time for us to call it on the memo. No real progress had been made but I was convinced to give it more time. There were still some avenues to be explored and though I don’t hold out much hope that this will give us anything new, there is that chance however remote.

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

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

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

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

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

Jan Aldrich and the Ramey Memo Update

(Blogger's Note: With the kind permission of Jan Aldrich, I am posting his apology to us about the Ramey Memo. This isn't so much as a "gotcha" as it is an illustration on how gentlemen in our modern society should conduct themselves. Jan made an error because a couple of links didn't work when he first attempted to use them. He responded with what he believed to be an oversight on our part as we attempted to decipher the Ramey Memo. Realizing his error, and finding the links were now working, he reassessed his reaction and offered an apology. I would like to see more of this, which is not to say apologies but all of us acting or reacting with such class.)

I want to make a public apology to Kevin Randle, Isaac Koi and the Above Top
Secret website.  I based my criticism on an incomplete view of the so-called
Ramey Memo on the Above Top Secret website.

When I first tried to click on the URL Isaac provided on the Above Top
Secret Website, there was no response. Attempting a search I got various
discussions and claims above the item, but not the latest posting.  Talking
to Barry after I told him his efforts were not represented there. I did
know that Barry had provided his assessment of the item to Kevin Randle who
had used it on his blog.  Barry indicated that the blog and other items were
indeed on the Above Top Secret website not just a compilation of previous
items on the subject.  Checking again, they sure were!   The URL worked and
all items from Kevin Randle's blog and Barry Greenwood's work were on the
website.

I am not trying to excuse for my posting.  My responsibility was to
thoroughly check the site before shooting from the hip on something.  So I
am now on Patrick Gross' "UFO Stupid" list up close to the top.

Previously, I had rather sharp exchanges with the late J. Bond Johnson on
this subject both in public and off-line about this subject which moved to a
threatened law suit on his part so maybe I am too sensitive about this
subject.*

Again, I humbly apologize to all concerned and to the readers of the various
email lists for my irresponsible actions in this matter.

Jan L. Aldrich

*J. Bond Johnson threatened to sue me on a number of occasions if I didn't retract the statements I had made about what he told me, all of which were recorded on audiotape. Given the circumstances, I would have almost enjoyed the lawsuit which would have vindicated my position on the matter. Johnson, instead, insisted on claiming I had misquoted him, I had maligned him, I had recorded him without his permission (though on tape you hear me ask if he minded if I recorded the conversations) and other assorted allegations. He, of course, never initiated the legal action, I suspect because he knew the truth and knew he had said all the things I claimed he did. Too often in the world of the UFO, we resorted to lawsuits when it seems that a careful word here or there would resolve the issue.