tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post7054799202988291865..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Ramey Memo UpdateKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-44134954062990291602016-03-02T21:41:32.508-08:002016-03-02T21:41:32.508-08:00Well gee wizz. Based on the description of what Ma...Well gee wizz. Based on the description of what Mac Brazell said he found on the Foster ranch, it would seem to fit fairly well with the construction components of a Project Mogul balloon. The Ramey photo(s) show some balloon material of some kind. The photo could be a deception cover story but with the Brazel description it does seem logical. On the other hand Mr. Brazel could have been intimidated to change his story but a newspaper person who interviewed him early on wrote a description of the debris similar to a what became known as Project Mogul. However with the Ramey memo now up for discussion and analysis it throws a new mystery into the case. I myself always leave the options open on the Roswell incident. No one to my knowledge has definitively bagged this one and probably never will. However there are so many credible UFO phenomena observations that have come afterwards that this case does not seem as important as it once did. However it is still a really cool story even if no one has all the answers.nsurroundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05064805283115665217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-15378624493195220352016-02-11T14:36:59.839-08:002016-02-11T14:36:59.839-08:00Mark -
It refers to the Aztec crash and was based...Mark -<br /><br />It refers to the Aztec crash and was based on the rumors circulating about Scully and his book. The memo is real but the events described are not.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46053718268522662612016-02-10T11:34:18.476-08:002016-02-10T11:34:18.476-08:00Kevin...what is your opinion of the 1950 Hottel me...Kevin...what is your opinion of the 1950 Hottel memo?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16740708587376680380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80069676806573198632015-10-24T13:42:06.702-07:002015-10-24T13:42:06.702-07:00Brian -
Yes, I am now violating my own edict by s...Brian -<br /><br />Yes, I am now violating my own edict by saying that LTC Albert Duran has not been discredited just because you say so. I have found his name in official government documents, so he did, in fact exist. It's not my fault that (a) Karl Pflock couldn't find him and (b) that he knew nothing about him other than what was said in the footnote.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16118618945463793862015-10-09T07:31:19.905-07:002015-10-09T07:31:19.905-07:00Another thing about the note is that he intentiona...Another thing about the note is that he intentionally wanted everyone to know that it is a cover-up without saying a word.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01534237709433242879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-18706291343292361032015-10-05T14:13:30.318-07:002015-10-05T14:13:30.318-07:00Brian -
Since you have failed to prove your origi...Brian -<br /><br />Since you have failed to prove your original claim and have diverted the conversation far enough, I declare this over. I will entertain no more discussion about your opinion about the witnesses and the way they have been categorized. KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33717396860698653792015-10-05T11:24:08.708-07:002015-10-05T11:24:08.708-07:00CDA:
Exactly.
And the way it plays out is invest...CDA:<br /><br />Exactly.<br /><br />And the way it plays out is investigators tell people that witnesses claim it was something not of this earth....then follow-up with a statement that says they know because they have conducted hundreds or thousands of interviews or even a thousand interviews with witnesses.<br /><br />Game play.<br /><br />Even MUFON says this on their website regarding UFO Crash @ Roswell:<br /><br />"Approximately 271 people are listed in the book who were "contacted and interviewed" for the book, and this number does not include those who chose to remain anonymous, meaning more than 300 witnesses were interviewed, a figure Pflock said the authors frequently cited. Of these 300-plus individuals, only 41 can be "considered genuine first- or second-hand witnesses to the events in and around Roswell or at the Fort Worth Army Air Field," and only 23 can be "reasonably thought to have seen physical evidence, debris recovered from the Foster Ranch." Of these, only seven have asserted anything suggestive of otherworldly origins for the debris."<br /><br />AND<br /><br />"....only four people with supposed firsthand knowledge of alien bodies were interviewed and identified by Roswell authors: Frank Kaufmann; Jim Ragsdale; Lt. Col. Albert Lovejoy Duran; Gerald Anderson."<br /><br />Now that these folks have been duly discredited, ETers simply back the second hand testimonies of people who claim they heard from others all about alien bodies.<br /><br />I guess second hand testimony is good enough - why bother with physical evidence?<br />Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25166549672307101772015-10-05T08:08:59.672-07:002015-10-05T08:08:59.672-07:00Brian:
Just as silly is when we read something li...Brian:<br /><br />Just as silly is when we read something like: "these witnesses have all stated it was something not of this earth".<br /><br />Yes of course these 'witnesses' know all about what comes from this earth and what does not. The simplest response to anyone who claims this is to tell them that there is NOTHING known to science which is "not of this earth", other than meteorites. <br /><br />Anything else can only come from science fiction.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13527006403385492062015-10-05T07:36:05.129-07:002015-10-05T07:36:05.129-07:00Kevin, if you or anyone else were to stand in fron...Kevin, if you or anyone else were to stand in front of any audience and say that you have interviewed 300, 500, or a thousand witnesses or conducted 300, 500 or a thousand interviews with as many witnesses to back up your claim it would be false without qualifiers.<br /><br />Plain and simple. Saying such a thing directly conveys one thousand people can verify the claim through first hand knowledge. This isn't true no matter what anyone says.<br /><br />Even in your own books you state you have conducted several hundred interviews without qualifying it by saying something like they were conducted with only 41 people dozens of times each or that only 41 could verify your conclusions from 271 actually interviewed.<br /><br />Without qualifiers it's just false advertising. If anything the people who do this are really the ones getting caught manipulating the information to sell a point.<br /><br />This is a common example posted on book reviews and told at conferences:<br /><br />"Kevin Randle, a free-lance writer and UFO investigator, and Don Schmitt, associated with the Hynek Center for UFO Research, interviewed hundreds of witnesses...."<br /><br />Hundreds of "witnesses"?<br /><br />So it's no surprise then that Schmitt would say "a thousand witnesses were interviewed". They are not really witnesses are they?<br /><br />Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33335301334939748112015-10-03T13:26:15.483-07:002015-10-03T13:26:15.483-07:00Brian -
Your original number is not confirmed bec...Brian -<br /><br />Your original number is not confirmed because you claimed first-hand eyewitnesses which is different than what you say now.<br /><br />You quote Schmitt as saying, "We've spoken to nearly a 1,000 people who claim something landed that was extraordinary...and not of this earth." This is not what you claimed he said. You were selling a false statement and were caught doing it.<br /><br />Everyone understands that these interviews were conducted over years rather than days, and I have no reason to suspect that he and Carey haven't conducted nearly a thousand interviews with many, many people.<br /><br />Nothing you have presented underscores your original claim. Instead you attempt to move the goal posts by citing what you believe to be additional problems, but all you are really doing is proving that when you paraphrase you change the original meaning.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47900442783333133072015-10-02T12:46:20.818-07:002015-10-02T12:46:20.818-07:00Kevin:
"but I suspect he is saying witness a...Kevin:<br /><br />"but I suspect he is saying witness as opposed to eyewitness, and he is counting interviews conducted over 25 years with people who were at Roswell but who said they had seen or heard nothing, people who had heard stories but saw nothing themselves and family members who remembered fathers, uncles, cousins and the like saying something about the case. I also suspect he counts people such as the geologists contacted in the search for Gerald Anderson's moss agate."<br /><br />You might want to ask him.<br /><br />If you agree that even more than a thousand interviews has taken place, then the number is confirmed. As far as "eye witness" vs "witness" or "interview" goes the difference to a listener may not be much at all. <br /><br />Especially the way Schmitt lines up his talks which usually have statements like this consistently spoken (this is paraphrased):<br /><br />"The Air Force has given four completely different stories and still can't get it right.."<br /><br />"That's right...it's a cover up of ignorance..."<br /><br />"We've spoken to nearly a 1,000 people who claim something landed that was extraordinary...and not of this earth."<br /><br />"We've been told that if we took all of this evidence and testimony to any court in the country we would win hands down.."<br /><br />These are typical (although paraphrased by me) comments that are part of his usual and nearly identical script spoken one event to the next.<br /><br />Does it matter if he is citing 1,000 witnesses interviewed over a span of 25 years or 25 days?<br /><br />What he is doing is selling a false statement for effect. That was my point.<br /><br />The jargon is intentionally combined with qualifiers that reinforce this 1,000 (or implied near thousand) to audiences who want to hear there are an amazing number of witnesses to the Roswell alien crash.<br /><br />He never says, "Over the last 25 years Friedman, Carey, Randle, myself and others have conducted nearly (or more than or close to) 1,000 interviews of which 95% yielded nothing, or just anacdotal and circumstantial evidence only, with the remainder being something that clearly indicates the witnesses were part of an alien crash and cover-up."<br /><br />Why not? Because when you're selling a myth in your verbal message you leave details out as means to influence the crowd and impress them with your (non) evidence."<br /><br />This is salesmanship well known in Ufology but rarely addressed and certainly not admitted by saucer lovers.<br /><br /><br /><br />Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-83697873563557618912015-10-02T09:32:24.373-07:002015-10-02T09:32:24.373-07:00Brian -
You said, "Nearly 1,000 first hand e...Brian -<br /><br />You said, "Nearly 1,000 first hand eye witnesses were interviewed and that is exactly what they claimed." And then you said, "Over time, as you know, we have moved from something like 300 to 900 with witnesses with added commentary by some investigators that says we are now around 1,000 people."<br /><br />But, first-hand, eyewitness is something different than 900 witnesses, and then some commentary by some investigators that brings the number to 1000, which, of course was not your original claim.<br /><br />So, you have backed off of the original claim of 1000 first-hand, eyewitnesses to something other than that. You suggest that Don Schmitt is using the number, but I suspect he is saying witness as opposed to eyewitness, and he is counting interviews conducted over 25 years with people who were at Roswell but who said they had seen or heard nothing, people who had heard stories but saw nothing themselves and family members who remembered fathers, uncles, cousins and the like saying something about the case. I also suspect he counts people such as the geologists contacted in the search for Gerald Anderson's moss agate. Or, in other words, the number might be close to a thousand and maybe he should adopt the FBI tactic of talking about interviews conducted, in which case I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a number as large as 1000... and if we talk of interviews conducted, then the number creeps up from there.<br /><br />However, your original claim of first-hand, eyewitnesses is inaccurate.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-12255348977700084852015-10-02T09:23:18.897-07:002015-10-02T09:23:18.897-07:00CDA:
Well yes, at least he posted such a comment ...CDA:<br /><br />Well yes, at least he posted such a comment several months back during the slides fiasco. On this blog too.<br /><br />Nitram you would be better at explaining your comment than me.<br /><br />Something about fervent belief it wasn't ET but people from our future - short big headed folks with large eyes. Again, if I recall correctly he made mention they are the product of our evolution.<br /><br />Nitram please clarify your comment to ensure I am properly representing your viewpoint. <br /><br />Maybe you can also explain the debris field size relative to time travel machines and how they might crash if the pilots haven't properly attended their distracted driver courses. I mean for heaven's sake how could they have missed hitting that balloon when they clearly could have read archived versions of this blog before departing home!<br /><br />And I do agree, perhaps when our conspiracy laden governments finally come clean, we can ditch our combustion engines and migrate to anywhere in human history. Just as shown in one of those classic Star Trek shows.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-15456906869427198012015-10-02T07:28:10.211-07:002015-10-02T07:28:10.211-07:00Brian:
You say that Nitram, or Martin, is of the ...Brian:<br /><br />You say that Nitram, or Martin, is of the view that "Roswell was an interdimensional human piloted time machine from the future." A machine from the future, eh?<br /><br />If so he has a bit of a nerve criticizing us skeptics who at least stick to 3 dimensions and the present or past.<br /><br />If he is correct in his unorthodox ideas, I look forward to travelling back to the past, then viewing the future, when we shall learn the truth about it all - finally!cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41657420218854191542015-10-02T06:27:23.166-07:002015-10-02T06:27:23.166-07:00Nitram, again if this really is your name, I can&#...Nitram, again if this really is your name, I can't help but wonder why your opinions can be so confidently expressed when you choose not to reveal your identity. Someone on this blog once stated anonymity was justified because people lose their jobs over this stuff. Well if you're so confident why are you hiding? Or what are you hiding?<br /><br />Since we're into picking nits you referenced and modified an original CDA comment:<br /><br />"...it can't have happened...because the govt wouldn't keep it secret after 70 odd years...because they're so honest about, errr, stuff."<br /><br />I never said "it can't have happened", I'm just saying what you claim happened never happened. You and they haven't proven it.<br /><br />Also, if you and other conspiracy minded people distrust your governments so much, why the heck do you want them to "disclose" the truth to you? You don't believe them now, so why would you believe them if they revealed today it all happened just as you claim it did? Circular reasoning in my book. "They're a pack of liars, but if they admit this we'll believe them by golly, we WILL believe them!"<br /><br />You also wrote:<br /><br />"And to be fair...sitting back and watching CDA, BB & to a lesser extent Lance attempting to joust with David or Kevin...is akin to watching a one legged man in an arse kicking contest."<br /><br />I understand these guys are flag bearers for your cause and, as mentioned, your unproven claims.<br /><br />As such I know you adore and worship every iota they write. And as I have written before, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Blind follow ship in something unproven is never a great idea. <br /><br />The challenges I think skeptic's offer are in fact valuable to you and your cause because it forces them to validate and contemplate what they believe, something which has yet to offer physical proof of any kind. It should be appreciated rather than mocked. <br /><br />That also goes for your personal theory that Roswell was an interdimensional human piloted time machine from the future.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47565524839399922642015-10-02T05:50:03.701-07:002015-10-02T05:50:03.701-07:00Kevin -
I haven't backed off if that is your ...Kevin -<br /><br />I haven't backed off if that is your perception regarding the 1,000 witness statement. If you care to verify this listened to the dozens of radio and conference videos where Schmitt speaks endlessness off the same rehearsed script. It's there if you investigate it.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63326365872687599852015-10-01T16:30:16.008-07:002015-10-01T16:30:16.008-07:00CDA wrote:
"Or that none of us are fit to pr...CDA wrote:<br /><br />"Or that none of us are fit to pronounce on a case like the Hill abduction because we never met the Hills and never visited the spot where their supposed abduction occurred?"<br /><br />I think it would help the investigation (not debate - you enjoy using the word debate) and your understanding of the case, if you had met the Hills and been to the spot of their supposed abduction.<br /><br />But again we are off topic...Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-27185517325950567072015-10-01T16:05:20.478-07:002015-10-01T16:05:20.478-07:00Nitram:
Your reasoning is extraordinary about who...Nitram:<br /><br />Your reasoning is extraordinary about who knows what and about skeptics who have never visited Roswell and never interviewed any witnesses are not fit to debate DR and KR. <br /><br />As it happens I have never been to Desert Center in California, have never been to Venus, and never spoke to George Adamski or any of his six witnesses. Would you say that therefore I (or anyone skeptical of the case) was not fit to pronounce on whether Adamski's claims to have met a Venusian were true or false? <br /><br />Or that none of us are fit to pronounce on a case like the Hill abduction because we never met the Hills and never visited the spot where their supposed abduction occurred?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17951770378396719532015-10-01T15:07:34.553-07:002015-10-01T15:07:34.553-07:00Jim Bender wrote
"We have confirmed that the...Jim Bender wrote<br /><br />"We have confirmed that the Ramey memo does have the following words included in the memo (Victims, and DISC)"<br /><br />Who is "We" Jim?<br /><br />CDA wrote<br /><br />"You have confirmed nothing whatever about the word 'victims' in the Ramey memo. Neither has anyone else."<br /><br />On this occasion CDA is correct - the word "victims" has not been confirmed 100%, but it is without doubt a "favourite" and the choice of one of the people in "David's team" - a skeptic) that visited the University of Texas earlier this year <br /><br />Regards<br />NitramNitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77405406150569168442015-10-01T14:57:12.926-07:002015-10-01T14:57:12.926-07:00Kevin, you replied to me in response to the questi...Kevin, you replied to me in response to the question I asked about when and where the current Ramey memo re-analysis would be published as follows:<br /><br />"There is a journal article in preparation so that the analysis can be peer reviewed. The problem is that the analysis is slow going with the experts, who will be identified in the article, operating on their own time."<br /><br />It's interesting to me that part of the article prep involves peer review, I assume by some kind of photo or other kind of experts who aren't involved in research or writing about the Roswell incident themselves -- is that correct?<br /><br />And, in reference to your mention of a "journal article," does that mean the article will eventually be published in the SSE's "Journal of Scientific Exploration" or their newer "EdgeScience" publication, or is the article to be published in some other peer-reviewed journal, and if so, can you name the journal involved?Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-28371948224623426062015-10-01T14:56:44.067-07:002015-10-01T14:56:44.067-07:00Paul Young wrote an excellent post, which I have &...Paul Young wrote an excellent post, which I have "tweaked" below...<br /><br />For myself & Paul Young, I can't help being very impressed with KR's and DR's knowledge and attention to detail on the whole "Roswell Incident" subject.<br /><br />I think many people visiting this blog, who are understandably skeptical, would be much more swayed by the arguments put forward by them than by, say, arguments put forward by cda (and bb who also hasn't been to Roswell or interviewed any of the witnesses), that basically boils down to "it can't have happened...because the govt wouldn't keep it secret after 70 odd years...because they're so honest about, errr, stuff"<br /><br />And to be fair...sitting back and watching CDA, BB & to a lesser extent Lance attempting to joust with David or Kevin...is akin to watching a one legged man in an arse kicking contest.<br /><br />That's not to say that on occasion, they make some good points (although I can't think of many off the top of my head)<br /><br />Either way, it makes for wonderful pantomime.<br /><br />And here's a good ole' Lancashire saying, for the next time you feel down and out after a DR/KR drubbing..."Keep plugging away, lads."Nitramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658903255370299035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46261847117210928052015-10-01T14:39:18.419-07:002015-10-01T14:39:18.419-07:00Oh, I forgot to mention, David was not there in ch...Oh, I forgot to mention, David was not there in charge of the investigation, but as someone who could answer detailed and specific questions about what had happened in Ramey's office and possibly suggest other avenues to search. I would have been there as well, but became ill and couldn't make the trip.<br /><br />The point is, that the scans will be posted to various sites as soon as the copyright can be cleared and we get permission from the University of Texas at Arlington. It has always been our intention to make everything available so that others would have the opportunity to review what we did, study the scans, and maybe suggest a new way to clear up the text of the teletype.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33923685999137386582015-10-01T14:29:09.907-07:002015-10-01T14:29:09.907-07:00Brian -
Just to pick a nit, because, well, that&#...Brian -<br /><br />Just to pick a nit, because, well, that's sometimes fun. I notice that you have backed off your claim of a thousand first-hand witnesses, suggested that Tom and Don upped the ante to somewhere around 900 but that includes second-hand witnesses and children or grandchild of those in Roswell in 1947. So, there really isn't a source for this, except maybe someone decided it was close to a thousand and someone else decided to leave off the qualifier.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19222365832924527762015-10-01T11:22:59.629-07:002015-10-01T11:22:59.629-07:00BB wrote:
"No, I don't have a government...BB wrote:<br /><br />"No, I don't have a government document which absolutely confirms Roswell was such an event, but there are real documents from spring 1947 and well after which state such experiments were conducted and ordered to be hidden from public eyes at all costs. Including tests with unwilling humans at altitude."<br /><br />It occurs to me that you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, BB, since the only support you can provide for your comparatively prosaic hypothesis concerning Roswell would require you to reveal those 'documents'that you claim reveal human outrages committed by the military and government scientists in New Mexico in 1947. If you don't work for the military or other agencies of the government of the US, you might as well be working for them since you feel the need to protect them from disclosure of one lie or another.<br />Jeanne Rupperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05382531551858084318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50591155278103792202015-10-01T11:04:07.631-07:002015-10-01T11:04:07.631-07:00BB wrote:
"But this isn't a court trial ...BB wrote:<br /><br />"But this isn't a court trial where every detail is presented to convict someone - or is it?"<br /><br />That seems to be the way you (and a few others) attempt to use this forum, BB. Your own verbal behavior adopts the tone and style of a prosecuting attorney with a vengeance.<br />Jeanne Rupperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05382531551858084318noreply@blogger.com