Wednesday, December 19, 2018

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 

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.


Nitram said...

Excellent work David!

It would be great if we could see you commenting more on this subject that you have put so much time and effort into.

Of course you don't need to reply to every comment :)

Keep up the good work.


Nitram said...


Please see reply from Kaleb below (post 1 of 2)

"First of all, I just want to thank David Rudiak for his epic response. This is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for and I finally got it!

The first thing I want to comment on is the very last part of his email: "It might also help me if Kaleb's methodology was provided. Currently I don't have a clue how he is approaching this."

To cut to the chase and without making this too long or complicated, I will just list all of the programs I can remember having used as I have been working closely on this project for nearly 2 years now (since reading online about the 10K reward) and there is no way I can provide every single detail on how every image so far has been conceived. One of the main programs I have been using is SmartDeblur 2.3 PRO (trial edition) to enhance the majority of my images, to what I believe to be a good standard. I have also turned some of the images into video clips, and as a result, used video editors such as STOIK Video Enhancer, which works pretty similar to take away some of the noise/grain (but for videos only). I also used the YouTube video enhancer, which was built into their website but is now defunct and no longer exists. This was also pretty effective at the time, especially for adding HDR and 3D effects. Some online websites I have used to enhance these images include; and using their various different settings/techniques. One website that stood out for its uniqueness is: which uses Artificial Intelligence, though personally I did not find much progress or improvement from using it. I believe there are more programs and websites I have used but these were and still remain the main ones for enhancing and editing or converting the memo into different file formats. I believe different file formats display different quality, sometimes better and sometimes worse. I would just like to state that everything I have used here is FREE of charge."


Nitram said...

Reply from Kaleb (Post 2 of 2):

"Now to answer some of the other comments, from top towards the bottom...

The resolution of the majority of the images that I have sent to (name deleted) are of HD quality, usually between 720p to 1080p. Any video file in particular is always sent in 1080p HD resolution too. I understand the Texas university scans are far larger in dimensions and size but this is the resolution that the programs and websites output the images in. I can make the images bigger, much bigger, especially using but I am concerned that the text in the images will become too stretched. I think the maximum size possible at the moment is 65000 x 65000 resolution, feel free to try this out for yourself. The programs and websites themselves all output the data in this "HD" quality, but I also have a fairly old computer from 2014 that lacks the "horsepower" potentially needed. I am working with a 4th gen intel core i3 that is slowly starting to show its age, hence why most of my processing power is done online as and when possible. Sometimes when you create these enhancements, you have to "give and take" at the same time. You loose something in order to gain something else, this is why we cannot remove the grain completely. Even your Flattened versions of the memo are not perfect and still contain distorted or "clumped" words that we are unable to identify for sure - these I believe are irreversible. With or without the grain.

Now regarding the word "DISC" or "DISK"; I still strongly believe that this is now NOT the word in quotes and I stand by my judgement until there is concrete evidence to prove me wrong. Why? Has it ever occurred to you or anyone else that maybe this quoted word is perhaps not a word at all? Maybe its an acronym for something top secret, like a code? OR maybe, just maybe there aren't any letters in this quote at all but instead... Numbers? A quoted set of numbers containing the number 0 is highly possible, is it not? For example, take the Majestic 12 code which is "SOM1-01" which contains both an "O" and an "0" in it. I know its not that code, but there could be similar examples out there that might fit the bill. So from where I am sitting, I see either an acronym of some kind with the letter "O" or a set of numbers containing the number "0". Maybe I sound a bit like a fantasist, or I have a vivid imagination but I can only believe in what I see and at the moment I do not see the word "DISC" or "DISK" clearly quoted in that document. Food for thought..."


Brian B said...

Just because the word “DISC” is in the teletype, assuming it really is, DOES NOT by any means indicate an alien spacecraft crashed near Roswell.

As Rudiak stated, “DISC” was an increasingly common and often used word to describe “flying saucers” at the time.

So if it’s in there I wouldn’t be surprised because the news media was already using the term in print. If the teletype is a news room message to Johnson, then that makes a whole lot of sense.

Of course “SOM1-01” is nothing but a hoax, and MJ12 isn’t anything real either. For Kaleb to use this as a potential example (as though it is real) even just to illustrate a hypothetical example of a possible acronym or alphanumeric substitution makes me think he’s already concluded Roswell was an alien crash.

That suggests to me the presence of strong bias even if he doesn’t agree with Rudiak’s examples.

Once bias is introduced problems arise.

Lance said...

Although, I continue to see David Rudiak's claims as unproven or worse (notice above how he switches from probability to certainty in just a dishonest phrase or two), the Kaleb responses are essentially meaningless.

There is a difference between noise and grain. Using a noise reducer on grain is not helpful.


cda said...

Didn't David Rudiak base his ET conclusions of the memo on the supposedly decipherable phrase "victims of the wreck"? I agree with Brian that "disc" conveys nothing useful at all. What is Kaleb's conclusion, if any, on "victims of the wreck"?

Nitram said...

Let's continue with the investigation...

Just to remind everyone of what can be achieved, this is what Basketball great Michael Jordan had to say:

"If you're trying to achieve, there will be roadblocks. I've had them; everybody has had them. But obstacles don't have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don't turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it."


David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell wrote:

Just because the word “DISC” is in the teletype, assuming it really is, DOES NOT by any means indicate an alien spacecraft crashed near Roswell. As Rudiak stated, “DISC” was an increasingly common and often used word to describe “flying saucers” at the time. So if it’s in there I wouldn’t be surprised because the news media was already using the term in print. If the teletype is a news room message to Johnson, then that makes a whole lot of sense.

1. It was the military the military that predominantly used "disc" (or "disk") instead of "saucers" in describing the recently reported objects. The press split about 50/50. (It was only several years later that the press settled almost exclusively on "flying saucer", but the military always preferred "disc" until they coined the acronym UFO.)

2. As an example, the Roswell base press release used the word "disc" (or "disk") to describe the object recovered. AP in their initial reporting of the press release used it 4 times; UP 7 times. Remember, the reporting was based on the wording of what the military released. Ramey and his men also used the word publicly. So it would be no surprise if it showed up in an internal military memo from Ramey to a superior. In other words, use of "DISC" is NOT evidence in favor of a civilian teletype.

3. There is no real evidence, none, that the Ramey memo is a civilian teletype. In form, wording, and substance, it does not match up with anything civilian at the time, despite ignorant claims to the contrary. To cite just one example, the memo's use of "WEATHER BALLLOONS" in the plural, did not appear until the next day in the press, and then only in the context that the weather services sent up numerous weather balloons every day. On July 8, however, you cannot find a single press telex or news story with a plural weather balloons. Instead, the Roswell stories on the west coast or rocky mountain states that managed to get in the official weather balloon story put out by Ramey, ALWAYS used the singular.

4. As another example, the memo has the phrase "IN THE "DISC"" (though some think it is "ON THE "DISC"") You can certainly find "THE DISC" all over the place in the newspapers, but NEVER "IN" (or "ON") THE DISC. I consider the word "IN" enormously significant as it indicates something of great importance was being dealt with found INSIDE the object being called a "DISC". But there are no insides to a weather balloon or a radar target.

Clarence said...

Despite our best efforts, isn't it possible the words in doubt may never be known with any degree of certainty? Given the limitations of the original camera, I would argue it didn't actually take a picture of a word; it took a picture of a "spot" on a piece of paper. No amount of advanced tech can tease out that word because there is no word to resolve....

Adam S. said...

Well said Lance.

I can only imagine how much of a kick Gen Ramey would get out of this if he were alive...

Byron Weber said...

If you'all want a better image of the Ramey Memo, listen up. I'm no expert, but I do have a BFA from CSUN. First, jpg format compresses data every time you copy or change the file and spits out a generalization. A png file is lossless data. A good 2d graphic artist can tweak the image with levels, masks, exposure and most important, a high pass filter, to produce a more legible image. It is more of an art than a science. Even after a brief play with Kevin's jpg image converted to png, in Photoshop and Gimp (free) there is absolutely no doubt in my mind "DISC" is correct, relevant or not. Too bad I can't post the image in blogger.

Brian B said...

This memo has been rehashed so many times on this blog I won’t bother to repeat all the sensible rebuttals to Rudiak’s conclusions which are evident in his recent response.

Understandably Rudiak (and others) have concluded the document refers to dead alien bodies found inside a disc (or disk) that was forwarded for inspection.

But if anyone here is seriously interested in what the memo possibly reads, including all the closed ended nonsensical conveyances Rudiak’s interpretation yields, I refer you to Tim Printy’s website where all of these problems are well discussed.

I have no doubt the teletype has the word “disc” (or disk) in it, as it seems rather obvious it’s probably there, but again will say the conclusion that the military was more inclined to use this term than say the media, which also used the term, therefore the memo must be a military correspondence rather than civilian (and it should really be AP or news media not “civilian” per se), is a very convoluted stretch given all the problems nicely outlined in Printy’s discussion.

There are serious problems with this conclusion — they aren’t contrived purely for the sake of debunking, but legitimate problems which almost certainly close the door to Rudiak’s interpretations.

Again this memo does not follow standard archived military correspondence formats nor the protocols found in military communication manuals of the time.

With that said, anyone interested in this should consider all possible avenues rather than ignoring these problems and thus concluding it’s all about dead alien bodies.

cda said...

Adam S:

Alas, Gen. Ramey took the great secret to his grave. This is, or was, the conclusion of the Roswell 'intelligentsia' some years ago. I have no reason to believe any of them have changed their minds since.

TheDimov said...

What I find curious, even perhaps rather telling, is that the word 'disc' (and not something like 'dio' - to me the word disc/k is one of the more certainties on the document) is its positioning on the document. I think it adds more meaning that disc is mentioned earlier because had 'weather balloon/s' been positioned first it wouldn't have made as much impact or sense, at least in terms of the supposed found object being something of highly unusual origin. The fact that 'disc' was mentioned first highlights to me its matter of importance and the fact that it may well be presented as a weather balloon to the world came fittingly and relevantly placed afterwards in the document.

Lance said...

Rudiak, in standard Rudiak fashion, uses 10,000 words to say something wholly immaterial and irrelevant.

David uses dishonest tactics that are as far away from scientific inquiry as possible. Read what David's imagination has cooked up as the actual full text of the memo and you will catch a glimpse into the fevered dreams of a committed true believer. The text makes sense only if you are dyed in the wool buff.

Of course what I have seen of these other supposed decryptions seems to be cut of the same biased and unconvincing cloth.

It is possible in this world to just not have an answer. That is a a truth that rabid believers (and some non-believers) just cannot stomach.

David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell wrote:
I have no doubt the teletype has the word “disc” (or disk) in it, as it seems rather obvious it’s probably there, but again will say the conclusion that the military was more inclined to use this term than say the media, which also used the term, therefore the memo must be a military correspondence rather than civilian (and it should really be AP or news media not “civilian” per se), is a very convoluted stretch given all the problems nicely outlined in Printy’s discussion.

Thank you once again for totally misstating my argument. What I said is the word "disc" by itself does not imply civilian origins, as YOU argued, since the military preferred the term over saucers and used "disc" and "flying disc" liberally in its initial press release from Roswell and in followup press releases and public statements. Therefore disc by itself does not imply either military or civilian press origins.

If this memo was a civilian telex about Roswell from AP, UP, INS, Reuters, etc., then there should be a definite close comparable known telex or news story with very similar wording to what is found in the Ramey memo. The reality is one cannot find such a story, and I probably know more about this than anyone. I collected some four dozen or so distinctive news stories about Roswell over a period of 20 years and visiting at least 60 library microfilm archives all over the U.S., and also Canada and England. These I've compiled and analyzed at my website:

So go to it Brian. You don't even have to do the hard part of finding all the various stories. They're already there in one place for you to read and study. Prove me wrong by finding a news bulletin, telex, newspaper story, etc. that adheres very closely to the ACTUAL text of the Ramey memo. This is called scientifically testing your hypothesis, and I have yet to see a skeptic put in the sweat to actually do it.

Just to cite a few examples, there are absolutely no AP, UP, etc. wire stories that use the plural of "weather balloon" on July 8, 1947, as does the Ramey memo. There are no such stories that have the phrase "IN/ON THE "DISC"". There are none that follow such a phrase with three successive four-letter words as in the Ramey memo. And there are other examples of things in the Ramey memo that don't match in paragraph structure, sentence structure, word lengths, tense, signature, etc. to any news story or bulletin, period.

In contrast, I can pull up known UP and AP early news bulletins about Roswell and easily find exactly matching or near exact matching newspaper stories derived from them in multiple newspapers. You can't do that with the Ramey memo. Such stories do not exist.

Brian B said...

I've asked this before but of course never get a strait answer. Just more name calling and blabbing about debunkers and such.

Why is “disc” in quotations? If it was a crashed alien saucer there's no need for it to be in quotations. That’s not how the English language works.

If it was a crashed balloon, but initially reported in the newspapers (and by Haut) a day earlier as a crashed disc, then quoting it would make sense. It would show the word “disc” is being used in the context of a “so-called disc” in the memo. A mistake — something initially thought to be a “disc” but which turned out to be otherwise.

Now as Rudiak (and others) assume, if Ramey wrote this memo, or even some higher up at the Pentagon, there’s no reason for any of them to use quotations on disc if it really was a space ship as some here think.

If it was, why didn’t they just call it a flying saucer, space ship, rocket ship, flying craft from Mars, alien space vessel, space missile etc.?

But they didn’t.

Instead they used quotation marks to indicate to whomever was the intended recipient that what was initially reported as a disc wasn’t a disc at all.

OK, so what if Rudiak is correct, and this isn’t a teletype from UPI, Reuter’s, etc. after all? Does that mean it’s a super top secret memo about dead aliens? No it doesn’t.

What if it’s a copy of a memo Ramey sent to Haut, or Blanchard, or Marcel, or the RAAF command in general? A memo he sent right before the photo shoot in his office. A message to clear up the confusion before the press arrived and made more out of this than necessary.

A memo intended to tell someone that they were mistaken — that what they thought was a disc wasn’t one at all.

This can explain a lot of things.

It addresses why Ramey has the memo in hand and why it refers to the material RAAF forwarded to him.

It also explains why “victims” might also be in there (although I doubt it really is).

If the word VICTIM (or VICTIMS) is really there it doesn’t necessarily mean there were alien bodies lying around.

You can also be the VICTIM of a story, or the VICTIM of your imagination, or the VICTIM of a hoax, or the VICTIM of bad counsel and advice.

Perhaps the memo simply pointed out that Haut had been the VICTIM of his imagination or a VICTIM of bad phrasing, or a VICTIM of bad judgement on Marcel’s account.

Haut had informed the press they had found a "disc". Indeed, they found something, but it may just have been a radar reflector mistaken as some sort of flying disc.

But due to Arnold’s wild stories and all the hullabaloo and public concern over these saucer sightings, Ramey felt the average citizen may have mistakenly interpreted Haut’s press release as meaning "they really did find an alien spaceship". That of course was not only ridiculous in Rameys eyes but also dangerous for national security.

No doubt Ramey probably knew about the various experiments with so called "weather balloons", and the last thing he needed was a stampede consisting of crazed saucer enthusiasts scurrying about in panic.

As a result, Ramey went into full damage control and may well have written a teletype to Haut et. al. to explain that somebody was the VICTIM of miswording, bad phrasing, misbelief, or what have you.

But in truth, I tend to think the phrase in question really reads like this:


Not “victims of the wreck”.

This also explains why the memo reads “MISSTATE MEANING OF STORY” — because Haut had conveyed the wrong message to the concerned public. It also explains why Ramey calls for a PR campaign with balloons to clear up the matter.

So this memo may be nothing more than Ramey’s urgent note to the command at RAAF that it was a big mistake, and that starting with the photo shoot steps were going to be taken to avoid any panic in the event the public misinterpreted Haut’s announcement.

David Rudiak said...

I tend to think the phrase in question really reads like this:


Not “victims of the wreck”.

First of all, "DEBRIS" cannot be correct because the word there has 5 letters, not 6. Step one in CORRECTLY reading this thing is getting the letter counts right. It's not that hard to get these right when the words are right out in the open, as is this one. Also, one can line up columns of text even when there is some question, such as the words that go into the center crease.

(Incidentally, that also rules out your nonsensical alternate interpretations that maybe VICTIMS might also mean "VICTIM of his imagination or a VICTIM of bad phrasing, or a VICTIM of bad judgement." If it's VICTIMS, it reads "VICTIMS OF THE XXXXX", which semantically and grammatically strongly suggests a very concrete, 5-letter noun.)

Second, it is possible to test what is the most probable among various proposed words by group readings and also computer rankings. E.g., Ross Evans, who describes himself as a skeptic, came to the conclusion that the word was indeed VICTIMS by doing an actual test. He broke up the word into individual letters and then posted them as CAPTCHA readings on a friend's website forums (which were not UFO related). As Ross emailed me: "From a sample dataset of over 2000 for characters served individually without context the vast majority [emphasis mine] of people identified the V for VICTIMS, the I and the ending I, M and S."

Contrarily, there was no consensus at all on the third and fourth letters, not surprisingly, as these are much less clear. Still the ONLY word in the English language with the lettering "VI??IMS" is VICTIMS.

Note again, this reading test was absolutely free of context, so in no way were people "seeing only what they wanted to see."

Another objective test was conducted by me using the process of mathematical cross-correlation between the period Telex font and the lettering of the Ramey memo (after being corrected for distortions created by perspective and folds). This provides a probability (between 0.00 and 1.00) that a letter in the memo matches one in the actual character set. These can then be sorted by probability to provide the relative ranking of letters from #1 to #26.

Taking all letters collectively, VICTIMS is the top-ranked overall word among various mundane one proposed here and elsewhere (REMAINS, FINDING, VIEWING, VENTING). I also tested against two similar nonsense words used as controls: VIOLINS and VIRGINS. 6 of 7 letters in VICTIMS are in the top five of rankings (the most of any proposed word). VIEWING is dead last amongst the 7 tested words (being behind even VIOLINS). REMAINS was 5th, losing out to even VIRGINS.

Particularly telling as discriminators was "V" ranked as the #2 letter vs. "R" (#8) and "F" (in the word FINDING) at #11, and "S" (#1) vs. "G" (#7). The less distinct #3 letter also has a lot of separation in rankings: "N" is #1, "C" #5, but the "E" in VIEWING is #21. (Ouch!)

This is why when I see claims here that, "Well I think VIEWING and REMAINS are every bit as good as VICTIMS because I say so", I have to ask myself on what basis are such statements being made other than personal opinion and bias?

There are other linguistic reasons based on a fuller reading of the sentence and the rest of the memo to reject the non-concrete gerunds like VIEWING or FINDING, but that would require another lengthy post.

And BTW, Brian, since you accept the line also reads as "YOU FORWARDED...", don't you find it peculiar that a civilian teletype would be written in the second person" or that a news person could forward anything to Fort Worth? "YOU FORWARDED" also implies somebody in command who could actually order something forwarded, not some lowly military flunky.

cda said...

Brian B:

Whilst in overall agreement with you, by far the biggest case against this Ramey memo containing anything suggesting an ET vehicle had visited the earth is the complete absence of any follow-up messages of any kind. Had a real ET crashed, or even been suspected of crashing, that day we can be absolutely certain that there would be (and they would still be on file even now) a myriad of other supporting documents from numerous sources. The fact that none, not a single one (even the memo itself), of these has turned up in over 70 years speaks for itself.

Yes I have said this before more than once. The whole idea of any ET vehicle crash and recovery is just plain laughable.

Clarence said...

Brian B states:

"...Why is “disc” in quotations? If it was a crashed alien saucer there's no need for it to be in quotations. That’s not how the English language works..."

I didn't major in English, but I'm not aware of any "rule" against the placement of quotation marks: a writer can use them as he sees fit. In the case of the memo in question, and since it wasn't a college thesis of some type, those quotation marks seem to denote some type of ambiguity; it's possible at the point the memo was written they weren't 100% sure of the objects origin, but by mentioning "disc", those in the loop had a pretty good idea of what was meant.....just a "thought"..:)....

Byron Weber said...

Wouldn't be ONI by any chance????

Byron Weber said...

For some reason someone does not want a translation of the Ramey Memo. It appears to be the Office of Navel Intelligence (INA), for whatever it's worth?

Lance said...

Rudiak's faux scientific claims are embarrassing, disingenuous and easily discarded.

His popularity contest (and Evans' similar one) for what people see is irrelevant. So what? The fact remains that source as we have is it is woefully indistinct. Just because many people might look at cloud and see a dog whilst fewer others might see a cat does not mean that either is "correct".

But Rudiak takes things into a much more dishonest realm when he claims his conclusions are "proof" or a "smoking gun" (as he does). This gets no one any closer to the truth. It merely exposes the UFO buff conspiracy mindset and spits on true scientific inquiry.

Brian B said...

Thanks for your note David, and for your continued snarky disposition. It doesn’t really help your case to bash those who are skeptical or who present alternatives to your definitive conclusions. But alas this is your modus operandi.

With that said, once again you’ve failed to answer the primary question — Why is “disc” in quotation marks? Because Ramey and some general at the Pentagon think that somehow by communicating in secret to one another that putting quotes around “disc” is more confidential than just calling it what it supposedly was, a crashed flying saucer with alien bodies?

That logic makes ZERO sense, but it’s these things that you dismiss as trivial little details that mean nothing in comparison to your lengthy analysis and conclusion this memo is a classified document describing the crash of an unknown space craft from another world.

From the blurry pixilated blobs you tease out a supposed official military memo’s formatted heading from Vandenberg himself — a format that doesn’t officially exist in any known military document type of the time. I guess senior ranking general officer’s don’t have to follow protocols, or perhaps they just prefer to retain staff who are ignorant of them.

As stated, there will always be some who believe that this memo is the smoking gun proof of alien visitation while ignoring all the evidence contrary to that opinion.

I guess Ramey was indeed the fool. Mastermind of the world’s greatest coverup and brainless nimrod who holds the most classified document of all time in plain sight for everyone to see in a press photograph.

Brian B said...

@ Lorrie:

Here’s the standard universal grammatical rule for use of quotation marks around a single word:

“When to Put Quotation Marks Around a Single Word. Quotation marks around single words can occasionally be used for emphasis, but only when quoting a word or term someone else used. Usually, this implies that the author doesn't agree with the use of the term.”

Rudiak’s conclusion is that this memo was written by Ramey himself (hence signed Ramey at the bottom) to Vandenberg (or copied to Vandenberg), who based on its contents, supposedly forwarded wrecked alien garbage from Roswell to Fort Worth.

You see the logic Rudiak uses ignores all the obvious details that such a thing couldn’t have happened. Did Vandenberg order the material be sent to Ramey, because it’s claimed Ramey ordered that it be sent to Fort Worth. Or is it that Ramey is letting Vandenberg know he oddly ordered himself to forward debris to himself? Nutty. Inconsistent. Illogical.

This memo, if really signed by Ramey as Rudiak claims, is clearly going to someone else who clearly forwarded the debris from Roswell to Ramey at Fort Worth. Ramey is addressing these people. If Vandenberg’s name is there then clearly it’s just a CC to him so that he’s aware.

Now who might Ramey be communicating with on the day of the press photo session? Who could that be? Well the folks at RAAF of course. And what do elements of the memo discuss?

The viewing of the wreckage (as seen in the photographs taken that day in his own office), and the misinterpretation of this material as something other than balloon debris — as in a “disc” — which Ramey clearly feels is a mistake, potentially a problem for the public and hence national security, and which needs to be quickly remedied by demonstrations so that people understand what weather balloons look like so they don’t interpret them as alien spacecraft. Let’s not forget Circleville’s preceding event.

So the spin often placed on this is just a variation of what’s written there — it’s not that Ramey is trying to clear up the matter correctly, but rather that he’s trying to CONCEAL the truth — hide it — and misdirect people by claiming it was a balloon when it really was a flying saucer.

So the content of the memo is actually the same in both cases — it’s just that one group believes it false and the other true.

If not this, IMO the only other thing it could be is a note from a press agency regarding the photo session in his office.

George Kanakaris said...

At least Rudiak is working on it. This is not embarrassing at all unlike your constant negativity.

Lance said...

George, I'll forgive your lack of knowledge that I have also worked with the team in attempting to decrypt the note. Sometimes it's wiser to keep your mouth shut when you don't know what you are talking about.

Even if you were right, I know you don't understand the fallacy that your response demonstrates... working in a a dishonest and biased way is actually worse than not working at all, even in UFO world.


Nitram said...

"At least (David) Rudiak is working on it. This is not embarrassing at all unlike your constant negativity."

Well said.

Lance you haven't really "worked" with the team on this. Although you do support getting an answer, David has undoubtedly spent more time on this than anyone.

There are some non-believers that think "Victims of the Wreck" is the most likely reading. That doesn't, in itself, make them crazy UFO nutters!


Paul Young said...

Lancelot wrote... "...working in a a dishonest and biased way is actually worse than not working at all, even in UFO world."

I'm interested to know. In which way have Rudiak's proposed solutions to certain words been dishonestly presented?

Paul Young said...

@ Brian Bell.
This business about the word disc being presented as "DISC" in the memo.
I've wondered about this too, but not too sure what to make of the significance of it.

My understanding is the word "disc" or "disk" had first been used,(in a UFO context) by the press, to describe the Arnold sighting.

Now, considering the Roswell press release was less than a fortnight after the Arnold press reports...maybe the word DISC was presented within inverted commas because they still didn't really know how best to describe these things.

Inverted commas are often used to emphasis irony, sarcasm or to point out the fact that a word is being used in a peculiar way.
So the word "disc" being used, for the first time in history, to describe a "spaceship" would certainly fit the "peculiar usage of a word" criteria. But then again...considering the circumstances of what was happening in Ramey's office that morning, the inverted commas could well be for the emphasis of sarcasm.

Bob Koford said...

Just for the sake of ending the quotation mark saga, for information sake, the term Flying Disc, in quotes, is seen many many times in the formerly classified record of the UFO program. It is, or should be, a non-issue, as opposed to other points to be raised.

It was extremely common usage when it came to reliable information on the subject,within the "ranks."

Be well,
Bob Koford

Nitram said...

I wrote:

"Lance you haven't really "worked" with the team on this."

Upon reflection, this statement is incorrect.
I would like to apologise to Lance, who has done some work with the team on this including contacting a number of people and assisting with making files available to others.
His efforts are appreciated and once again I apologise for any offense caused.


Paul Young said...

Nitram...I expect the effort of emailing files to others, who then attempted to "deblur" them, is dwarfed by the hours and hours of in-depth research and leg-work that DR has put into the subject.

Lance said...

Paul Young's response above is certainly par for the course for how UFO believers treat anyone who is not on board with their religion.

Thanks for minimizing whatever efforts I had on this project (which you know nothing about)! I'm sure that your sort of warm welcome will lead to lots of folks wanting to help more.

When the project first started, it was shared with me that DR didn't have enough space to host the files online so that they could be shared easily. I immediately offered to host the huge set of files, which I have been doing (right up until a few days ago).

I consulted with Martin for hours on the best way to crowd source responses.

I also shared the files with multiple scientists, including the lady who developed deblur tech (used in apps like Photoshop) and Dr. Stuart Robbins of NASA (who worked on the enhancement of images from Pluto). Dr. Robbins mentioned his thoughts about the memo on his podcast.

As someone who does high end FX work a living, I also spent many hours looking at the files and attempting to see if I could add anything to the body of knowledge. I suppose my greatest sin was that I honestly admitted (as did the scientists and others I contacted) that I could not. Not getting saucer results is apparently the same as doing nothing in the world of UFO Science.

I never said that I did as much as David Rudiak in regards to the files. He has done a lot. Unfortunately, much of what he does, I see, as biased, if not dishonest--- a popularity contest of who sees what letters isn't helpful in my opinion.

Unfortunately, it is has always been the case that believers (like Paul) are dazzled by a veneer of science and scientifical words and they aren't too particular about the meaning behind the claims. That's why the field is abhorred by real science (maybe that and the way believers treat anyone who tries to help).

Contrariwise, I said that the work done on that television show that debunked "VICTIMS", was not scientific or convincing. And see my comments above on the latest claims.... I hope that doesn't affect my debunker pay check.

I was shocked by Martin's initial response and, while I appreciate his apology, I think I'll definitely think twice about helping out in projects like this in the future.

Meanwhile the Paul Youngs and George Kanakarises of the world get the Ufology they deserve: a silly world detached from truth and reality, just the way they like it.

Paul Young said...

Lance..."When the project first started, it was shared with me that DR didn't have enough space to host the files online so that they could be shared easily. I immediately offered to host the huge set of files, which I have been doing (right up until a few days ago)"

You're quite right Lance. I'll rephrase my previous post.

..I expect the effort of storing and emailing files to others, who then attempted to "deblur" them, is dwarfed by the hours and hours of in-depth research and leg-work that DR has put into the subject.

Lance said...

Paul-- what would you say is the greatest insight you have gained about the memo from DR's work on it?

dannycyf said...

Hi, is it possible to use DLSS and machine learning to upscale the texts or did I just introduce wrong methodologies?