tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post5211336915711865941..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Digital Image of the Ramey MemoKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger150125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-87516590398079417882016-06-25T20:02:26.573-07:002016-06-25T20:02:26.573-07:00-
Hello.
First I want to apologize for my bad en...-<br />Hello. <br /><br />First I want to apologize for my bad english.<br /><br />I am 50 years old and I am coming from Germany.<br />With Roswell, I am well acquainted.<br /><br />To decrypt this extremely interesting document, I suggest the following:<br /><br />1. First you need the ABC in exactly the font in which the telex was written at that time.<br /><br />2. The test persons should be selected only by non-English speaking people. <br />These people may not know what content they should identify.<br />These points prevents that such persons can draw the wrong conclusions.<br /><br />3. To be able to declare at least 2-5 letters as safe, <br />there are surely cognate some original Army letter.<br />I am sure that all similar army-telexes always had the same structure.<br /><br />Maybe I could hereby give food for thought.<br /><br />Regards - Eric <br />--Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04305639437816061265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29169127038501709332015-11-12T19:27:35.725-08:002015-11-12T19:27:35.725-08:00Yes Lorrie it is. But I'd like to think that p...Yes Lorrie it is. But I'd like to think that people who claim to know so much about it could do a little homework themselves rather than ask me to be their intellectual butler.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-15163030940542996602015-11-12T17:35:27.981-08:002015-11-12T17:35:27.981-08:00..I believe the "tornado in a junkyard" .....I believe the "tornado in a junkyard" quote may be from Sir Fred Hoyle.....Clarencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17950970228169491036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-51019279445090659792015-11-11T15:05:10.889-08:002015-11-11T15:05:10.889-08:00CDA wrote:
"I don't know who originally ...<br />CDA wrote:<br /><br />"I don't know who originally said this."<br /><br />("The probability of intelligent life evolving on another planet is akin to the chance that a tornado blowing through a junk yard might assemble a completely functional 747 aircraft.")<br /><br />Unfortunately BB has a habit of not quoting his "source" - this is just another example.Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1887533446841216182015-11-10T05:10:17.729-08:002015-11-10T05:10:17.729-08:00Nitram:
"The probability of intelligent life...Nitram:<br /><br />"The probability of intelligent life evolving on another planet is akin to the chance that a tornado blowing through a junk yard might assemble a completely functional 747 aircraft.""<br /><br />I don't know who originally said this. He probably was referring to the probability of ET life evolving ON ONE PARTICULAR PLANET. Considering that there are anything from 10 to the 20th power to 10 to the 25th power celestial bodies in our universe, you can see that the true probability of at least one of them having ET life is considerably (!) increased.<br /><br />Without any advance knowledge, what would you say was the probability of ET life evolving on earth as it has now?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47356527160524670302015-11-09T16:12:45.926-08:002015-11-09T16:12:45.926-08:00After reading Kevin's response, I went back to...After reading Kevin's response, I went back to find what I thought I had read in David's rebuttal of Greenwood. It was this line:<br /><br /><i>Greenwood likewise couldn't match other agreed-upon words/phrases like "IN (or ON) THE 'DISC'," "MEANING OF STORY," "WEATHER BALLOONS," "LAND," or "CREWS."</i><br /><br />http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Fortean_Times.html<br /><br />Re-reading the whole article, clearly, I took the passage out of context. Greenwood could not find those words in the press reports; I thought it referred to not finding the terms in the memo.<br /><br />I was mistaken.<br /><br />And so I must sincerely apologise to David and everyone else here for my (somehow) tricking David against his will into repeatedly calling me a troll and a liar. As we all know, and David often declaims, SERIOUS people are never insulting; rather, insults are always the fault of the UNSERIOUS people who are being insulted. I see that now.Terry the Censorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07442516952399215568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50399270590541641242015-11-09T15:15:33.168-08:002015-11-09T15:15:33.168-08:00BB wrote
"The probability of intelligent lif...BB wrote<br /><br />"The probability of intelligent life evolving on another planet is akin to the chance that a tornado blowing through a junk yard might assemble a completely functional 747 aircraft.""<br /><br />Ok - that is quite funny BB, but surely the odds aren't quite that extreme. - can we have the source of this quote please - you are often asked to provide "details" for your posts so remember to quote your sources (or web sites)<br /><br />Don wrote:<br /><br />"So skeptics such as Lance are the saviors of humanity? Now we don't have any hope."<br /><br />"Those which go away without been expelled, come back without being called".<br /><br />Well done Don - you scored a couple of good hits.<br /><br />Regards<br />NitramNitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6036604479418491172015-11-09T14:03:20.796-08:002015-11-09T14:03:20.796-08:00@Lorrie (2/2): I would just disagree on some degre...@Lorrie (2/2): I would just disagree on some degree on the easiness to study ufos if wanted to have it done in a productive and "serious" manner. Decades of even serious and dedicated investigations of cases have shown their limits and I should say its hopelessness. IMO it falls down to one main point, which is that not enough robust and hard data have been acquired to raise the attention of authorities and the scientific community to overcome the bulk of very dubious stuff that on the contrary have grown bigger and bigger through the years, making the field more and more fearsome to scientists for their careers, so that very few would openly admit their interest in the subject, and even less engage themselves in an active research. Even then, what's the point if you don't have enough material, people and competence to carry one a serious scientific study? Which is why things have stagnated for decades or maybe got even worse from the 50/60's when the subject didn't seem to have such a neferious aura than it has now. My belief is the only way to move forward on the subject of ufos is to engage in a serious scientific study on personnal initiatives or maybe through some public agencies for the ones that may be more open and willingful to undertake such a study (for example IMO the french GEIPAN seem to be somehow open to the subject but just way too passive, of course without a budget you don't go anywhere). I was recently listening to a ufo podcast with Leslie Kean and Mark Rodeghier speaking of the project of ufodata which is the kind of project that may yields some interesting results, the problem being because of the very elusive nature of ufos, one cannot predict if and when interesting data would be obtained, which is another reason why scientists aren't willing study the subject...sorry to have gone so far off the rails...Bricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15256342379584886357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80115094840336902542015-11-09T13:57:15.136-08:002015-11-09T13:57:15.136-08:00@Lorrie (1/2) : speaking of ET life and Carl Sagan...@Lorrie (1/2) : speaking of ET life and Carl Sagan, it's a kind of a "double standard" for skeptics who say they believe ET life exists in the universe but refuse to consider the ETH as a possible explanation for some ufos (these are debunkers and not skeptics). In both cases there aren't any definitive proofs yet but at least some "clues" which IMO should let us keep an open mind on these possibilities. So why one would believe/accept an idea and willingly reject another when both aren't proven? I think (some) skeptics associate too much of a notion of faith to the subject of ufos hence their reaction of rejection, when it should just be considered dispassionnately, just as another hypothesis, even if it doesn't fit our still very anthropocentric society paradigm. But in anycase, isn't it the essence and fate of science to be "revolutionnary", so why fear a "revolutionnary" hypothesis?Bricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15256342379584886357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22855152166115166592015-11-09T12:43:58.930-08:002015-11-09T12:43:58.930-08:00@ Lorrie
"...And, let's all admit it, it...@ Lorrie<br /><br />"...And, let's all admit it, it's great fun!!!"<br /><br />Agreed. I fear some take it a bit too serious, i.e. the dogged "quest".<br /><br /><br />Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41311170025861741432015-11-09T11:31:01.456-08:002015-11-09T11:31:01.456-08:00Another thing to think about in regard to the aver...Another thing to think about in regard to the average UFO buff: sending a probe to Mars or having your very own SETI program is beyond the reach of most of us. But to those interested in a possible connection between UFOs and ET life, solving the mystery is in the reach of most of us who are interested in the ultimate answer. It doesn't take a great deal of money to investigate the typical UFO sighting or even a large amount of brains (I'm living proof!). Splitting the atom was open to a rare few, but UFOs are open to all. And, let's all admit it, it's great fun!!!Clarencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17950970228169491036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63216727876805005582015-11-09T11:19:09.524-08:002015-11-09T11:19:09.524-08:00Brian: every great discovery starts with a vision,...Brian: every great discovery starts with a vision, and the idea the vision is actually true, or why pursue it? At the time of Carl Sagan's death there was not a single shard of evidence of extraterrestrial life. So why was he so outspoken about it? Was he a crank? Not at all. Rather, I would suggest that while he knew ET life was a reality, he also realized the final proof was still lacking. The average UFO buff is in the same boat. There's nothing nefarious or odd about it; it's human nature. And in the end of course, we all want vindication.Clarencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17950970228169491036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-14741874323573212312015-11-09T06:17:10.857-08:002015-11-09T06:17:10.857-08:00@ Lorrie
The question of ET life is not a new one...@ Lorrie<br /><br />The question of ET life is not a new one. We know the debate over the "plurality of world's" began as early as the time of Anaximander (~ 546 BC) as an abstract argument that other worlds may exist with people such as ourselves living in or on them.<br /><br />That question was largely a philosophical-religious one predating the scientific Copernican conception that our planet is one of numerous planets around us.<br /><br />I believe Drake, Sagan, and others that you mentioned would today be considered proponents of "cosmic pluralism" as it was once known, as would any person who embraces the concept of intelligent ET life elsewhere in the universe.<br /><br />Some skeptics, but not all, would probably consider themselves "rare earth" proponents.<br /><br />But there's a difference between just believing ET life may exist and claiming it's visiting us now or has been for thousands of years. The difference isn't subtle.<br /><br />My question for Brice was focused on the "quest" for confirmation from lay followers (UFO ET proponents) who seek to prove something they claim is already obviously true based on witness testimony and photographs alone.<br /><br />Is it because they think the rest of the world should believe them, but currently won't? And if so, isn't that akin to a pseudo evangelistic cause?<br /><br />So why the quest if people already believe it for themselves?<br /><br />- Just for deep personal confirmation?<br /><br />- Vindication of some kind?<br /><br />Or something greater perhaps:<br /><br />- A desire for world change?<br /><br />- A reason to explain why people exist?<br /><br />- Just because it's cool?<br /><br />- Hope for humanity through assistance from aliens?<br /><br />In "A.D." Dolan claims:<br /><br />- Congress will hold Watergate-style hearings and ask secret-keepers, "What did you know and when did you know it?"<br /><br />- The first decade A.D. (After Disclosure) will be like a high-tech 1960s, spawning massive cultural and societal change.<br /><br />- Abductees will file a class-action suit against the government for withholding critical information.<br /><br />- All the textbooks on planet Earth--from history to science--will need an immediate review.<br /><br />So why the quest and yearn for an answer that many people here claim they already know is real?<br /><br />It has to be more than just finding means to save $ and time on expensive research such as SETI.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-12720161065112539382015-11-09T05:59:58.303-08:002015-11-09T05:59:58.303-08:00@ David Rudiak
Thank you for answering my questio...@ David Rudiak<br /><br />Thank you for answering my questions. I think that the way the film was processed and abused afterward explains in part why we have so much trouble reading the document. The speedy processing led to what's called blocking up the detail in the negative. Basically the d-max and d-min blend together. Such is the case when speed is more important than fine detail. What we have in the scans is possibly all we will ever get.<br /><br />Someone suggested using artificial intelligence computing to try to make some sense of the writing. I like that idea because it might be faster and could eliminate some of the prejudice that seems to be a point of contention. That's just an opinion. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16703256896826354786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5214096691127916982015-11-09T05:04:54.500-08:002015-11-09T05:04:54.500-08:00@Lance :
I can see your point but as for myself I ...@Lance :<br />I can see your point but as for myself I don't take too much consideration of some specific words which may be more of an emphasis of someone's opinion, as long as one is exposing in detail his arguments and all the evidence that lead to his conclusions, so one can just make up his own mind as well.<br /><br /><br />Brian Bell said :<br /><br />"If you go back and scan my posts I've said I have no problems with people of any persuasion analyzing it further."<br /><br />ok I haven't read all the comments...<br /><br />"Why is it that people are so feverish about the need to prove that ET life is visiting earth? Obviously they are seeking some sort of answer and those who believe flying saucers are evidence of it are already convinced.<br /><br />So if convinced why the need to prove anything? What's the big deal about "them" being here?"<br /><br />I wouldn't say exactly that people have necessarily the <b>need to prove</b> ETs are visiting earth but most are just very interested to understand what the UFO phenomenon is, having come to the conclusion that prosaic explanations can't explain some cases and that the ETH is a possible explanation, and maybe the most adequate or "economic" in our current view given the characteristics of some strange cases. What makes this subject very peculiar IMO is that if an ET origin of some ufo are proven then it would certainly shaken our current paradigm, mostly for the very religious people. Alhough knowledge has progressed a lot from a few centuries ago, I think we still live in an anthropocentric paradigm. You just need to look how monotheistic religions (where man is the center of the universe) are still widespread or creationism still thought to be valuable. So in essence it would be a big change (especially for some groups) in our conception of the world and "our place" in the universe.<br /><br />"Of the memo wete clear and it said quite plainly "we have recovered a space ship with bodies of people from another planet" what would it really change about anything?"<br /><br />Not sure what you meant (I lack some english langage), but IMO the deciphering of the Ramey Memo might change a lot in a or another direction, or not change anything, but who knows until a real good portion of it could be clearly deciphered (supposing this could possible?)Bricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15256342379584886357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-18560810640633548612015-11-08T23:25:56.627-08:002015-11-08T23:25:56.627-08:00Brian: most people tend to believe the question &...Brian: most people tend to believe the question "are we alone in the universe?" is one of the great unanswered mysteries of human existence. There seem to be several ways of answering it; the discovery of radio transmissions from outer space, sending a probe or manned mission to a nearby star or perhaps the discovery of ruins or alien space debris. All of those possibilities would require not only a great amount of luck, but also a lot of money, technology and political will. However, to those interested in the question itself, there is another alternative; that aliens have or are visiting the Earth, which would require very little money or a decades long interstellar mission to verify. Of course, if the idea of alien life or alien visitors falls into your idea of the mundane, then you would be correct to say "who cares"? But I would argue that Sagan, Hoyle, Von Braun, Clark, Drake and others were on to something by believing that actual proof of ET's existence might be a watershed event in the history of the human race.....Clarencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17950970228169491036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67721826944167347562015-11-08T19:46:30.008-08:002015-11-08T19:46:30.008-08:00@ Brice
I forgot to add this...
Why is it that p...@ Brice<br /><br />I forgot to add this...<br /><br />Why is it that people are so feverish about the need to prove that ET life is visiting earth? Obviously they are seeking some sort of answer and those who believe flying saucers are evidence of it are already convinced.<br /><br />So if convinced why the need to prove anything? What's the big deal about "them" being here?<br /><br />Of the memo wete clear and it said quite plainly "we have recovered a space ship with bodies of people from another planet" what would it really change about anything?<br /><br />Just asking...and I'm serious. Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-27645767413484848332015-11-08T19:39:58.845-08:002015-11-08T19:39:58.845-08:00@ Brice
"...why you wouldn't be supporti...@ Brice<br /><br />"...why you wouldn't be supportive of a further analysis of the Ramey memo since it may (or not) clear up some things, whatever they may be.."<br /><br />If you go back and scan my posts I've said I have no problems with people of any persuasion analyzing it further.<br /><br />No one can be certain what it says at the moment. So when others say it's "Roswell Proof" meaning proof the government is hiding aliens from us I can't agree with that.<br /><br />Mostly the memo seems to be gibberish as it's currently deciphered.<br /><br />It does seem to have "disc" and "Fort Worth, Texas" written in it, and it does seem to have "Ramey" at the bottom. But from that we can only deduce what's there isn't any different than what the newspapers were printing.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40168617188809231042015-11-08T18:17:40.576-08:002015-11-08T18:17:40.576-08:00Good one, Don!
Good one, Don!<br /><br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-62699973803110731742015-11-08T18:16:08.158-08:002015-11-08T18:16:08.158-08:00"That is exactly the kind of thing that skept...<b><i>"That is exactly the kind of thing that skeptics have to fight against because, believe it or not, that kind of dogmatism makes the world a worse place."</i></b><br /><br />So skeptics such as Lance are the saviors of humanity? Now we don't have any hope.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-81481260386509240762015-11-08T17:40:52.150-08:002015-11-08T17:40:52.150-08:00"Actually, I don't think there are many w..."Actually, I don't think there are many who are claiming any "proof" otherwise we wouldn't still be discussing about some cases and the ETH. "<br /><br />Brice, you should look into this more. The main proponent for the memo does claim that he has proven his case. He shows zero uncertainty. Take a look at David Rudiak's site, preposterously called roswellproof.com (getting the picture?). There you will find statements like this:<br /><br />"Telegram held in General Ramey's hand provides smoking gun proof of a "disk" crash and the recovery of "the victims of the wreck"<br /><br />That is what we are dealing with. Religious zealots who take a supposition and insist that it is proven fact. That is exactly the kind of thing that skeptics have to fight against because, believe it or not, that kind of dogmatism makes the world a worse place.<br /><br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-71035659018925227372015-11-08T16:17:16.940-08:002015-11-08T16:17:16.940-08:00Brian Bell said :
"My skepticism is mainly a...Brian Bell said :<br /><br />"My skepticism is mainly about the cases that people claim are "proof" of alien visitation yet they have no scientific evidence to really prove it. They want us to believe it just because they say we should, and that THEY know better than everyone else. They have no space craft, debris, technology, or dead aliens. Nothing. And here, in lieu of physical evidence, we are examining an old photo of a teletype to "prove" aliens exist. That's ridiculous."<br /><br />Actually, I don't think there are many who are claiming any "proof" otherwise we wouldn't still be discussing about some cases and the ETH. On the otherhand, IMHO there are enough substantial clues that indicate in some cases ETH comes as a possible explanation which is NOT saying that is proof, which I think you're confusing in your mind. Still, what I can't figure out since you're demanding evidence before being affirmative (on which I agree but this works in any ways) is why you wouldn't be supportive of a further analysis of the Ramey memo since it may (or not) clear up some things, whatever they may be, if done in an openly way so that everyone would be able to evaluate and criticize any results brougth forward by anyone, the point being that criticizing intellligently is different than mere poor attacking without any valuable argumentation (again in both ways).<br /><br />"As long as there's no hard evidence that can be examined it's unreasonable to say that you have "proven" that aliens are here."<br /><br />I totally agree, but... <br /><br />"There are more prosaic explanations for what is seen and experienced, but those are ignored by the hopes and dreams of people looking for some sort of earthly salvation from beings from outer space."<br /><br />I think you unfortunately wrongly project your own beliefs into other people's mind. You don't need to fantasize about what would ET life could be like (I reckon some skeptics arguments may make sense but on the same way it hasn't been proven), still you can just reasonnably figure out prosaic explanations can't explain some cases and due to their characteristics <i>consider </i> the ETH as a possible explanation.Bricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15256342379584886357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-89077344975316159152015-11-08T11:17:28.969-08:002015-11-08T11:17:28.969-08:00@ Lorrie
Thanks for the comments. I do know of Hu...@ Lorrie<br /><br />Thanks for the comments. I do know of Hugh Ross's work most notably in creation theory. I wouldn't go so far as to rule out the possibility of ET life, as one cannot know the mind of God. In this case the phenomenon we call "UFOs" seem to defy normal explanation. I'm fine with the ETH being ONE of the many possible explanations, but I don't think it's the ONLY possible explanation. So far we can speculate life out there may exist, and as some have claimed before me life by way of spontaneous self creation and then evolution remains totally unproven.<br /><br />One analogy provided by others has been this:<br /><br />"The probability of intelligent life evolving on another planet is akin to the chance that a tornado blowing through a junk yard might assemble a completely functional 747 aircraft."<br /><br />I tend to think the analogy is applicable given what we currently know.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-24782429270200089212015-11-08T09:17:44.527-08:002015-11-08T09:17:44.527-08:00All -
I will note again that we should remain cor...All -<br /><br />I will note again that we should remain cordial in our discussions. I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept. It does not facilitate discussion to insult one another. I think everyone has had a chance to respond to the insults so that no more will be tolerated...KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25483648869409742462015-11-08T09:14:30.674-08:002015-11-08T09:14:30.674-08:00CDA -
We have been working on this for quite a wh...CDA -<br /><br />We have been working on this for quite a while, attempting to put all the pieces together. It took months and months and the reason that we have produced some of the scans publicly and all of them privately, was because we want to know what the memo says. It might be, just as you say, the only the only hard evidence remaining... which I will qualify to add, in the public arena. There may be hidden documents but since we have no evidence of that, it is a very fine thread on which to hang a hope.<br /><br />If we can read it, no matter the outcome, we will have an answer to one of the riddles. It might please those on the skeptic side or maybe those at the far end of the spectrum.<br /><br />But this attempt to decipher the memo was born of expert opinion that the latest technology and software might be enough for us to clean up the text. Our plan was always to present all that we found into a public forum... with some more positive results than we have achieved. We had hoped that we would have a better handle on this when we came out but that just isn't the case.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com