It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Roswell - New scans of the Ramey Memo : Can it now be enhanced/deciphered?

page: 6
157
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: trueskepticnumberone


This thread strikes me as simply pedlling doubt where there really isn't any.

Ask the men who were there, they'll tell you what really happened, and their testimony corroborates each other's precisely. The ones who are now dead gave detailed testimony, including deathbed statements, and the ones who are still alive will still tell you that aliens crashed at Roswell.


I dont think were talking about the same Roswell case, the one being discussed here is a fairly tangled web, there are many cases that are far less confusing.

For those wanting a detailed look at Roswell, Gazrok did an excellent series of threads on it.

For a more critical look, The Gut has this confession thread.

Of course, there continues to be lively debate on various aspects of the case at Kevin Randles blog.




posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

Having had the chance to listen to several interviews with Jesse Jr. while he was still alive, I will always consider the look in his father's eyes and his expression as two of the most d@mning bits of evidence in this odd bit of Americana...

I would imagine most of you already know this, but for the benefit of someone new:

The sleight of hand took place while Jesse Sr. was called into the office. Upon returning to the room where the pictures were taken, his father immediately (how could he NOT?!) saw that a quick switch had been done and none of the actual artifacts in question remained.

Psychology has been a bit of a hobby of mine since the '70s and Jesse Sr.'s reaction is priceless! They immediately started the pictures and, imo, every one showing Jesse Marcell Senior just screams, "You gotta be F---in' kidding me! Seriously???"

The military men who have had to participate in what they knew to be illusion, over the years, have my sympathy. When people say, "But they knew once they signed that dotted line...", I understand completely. How many, though (especially during the flaps during the '50s and '60s), could have possibly known what lay ahead for them?

It would be fantastic if these guys could finally get some validation & vindication. No way on G*d's Green Earth would anyone have dreamed back then that the day would come that that scrap of paper would be legible. What a victory for the Truth it may turn out to be!

I've asked many times, if it was all about balloons and dummies why would they rip the corn cribs and feed bins of local farmers apart looking for the smallest bits of material evidence that may have been squirreled away?

Great thread!



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Pinke

Its looking like there isnt going to be break in this like the Roswell slide. Do you have an opinion on the specific word "Victums" that David Rudiak claims is in the memo?

He argues some for the wording here



Similarly for VICTIMS OF THE WRECK, that is again NOT just me (wasn't even originally proposed by me), but the strong consensus of those who have studied the memo. (Even Simon Schollum, our forensic photography expert agrees, after studying the memo and doing his image processing, which I believe actually does improve the word, including bringing out the "T" that was previously buried in noise.)

Let me AGAIN point out skeptic Ross Evan's experiment where VICTIMS was reduced to individual letters and made into Captcha's. According to Ross, the VAST majority of 2000+ origin and context ignorant readers agreed on "V", "I", "I", "M", "S". The ONLY possible English word that can fit here is VICTIMS. Again, you don't have to read every letter with with total certainty to figure out with high probability what a word is.

My computer OCR program likewise agrees VICTIMS is the standout word in letter probabilities, easily beating out alternate proposed words like REMAINS or VIEWING. It ranks right up there in letter probability with control words WEATHER BALLOONS and FORT WORTH, TEX that everybody agrees are there (again, except for the trolls).


Ectoplasm8 has a different reading on page 4, curious if you have looked into it as well.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: 111DPKING111
Hiya King,

Any OCR would need a verification step for results. In this case you would apply the OCR to similar imagery where you know what the results are. If we knew what the original camera was we could do something about that maybe.

Other than that I can't really advance an opinion. All the surveying really tells me is that it looks like something to most people, it doesn't tell me what it is.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Wow, awesome work. I'm sure going to take a look at that. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Fantastic. I have been reading all this material again for a month. Just got around giving you the kudo's you deserve for this OP, it is a great resource that basically covers most everything you would want to know about this fork of the Roswell debacle.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Forwards to tinyurl now give Error (429)
"This account's links are generating too much traffic and have been temporarily disabled!"

That stopped some of the later reads I wanted to cover. Certainly is a testimony of how popular this thread was/is.

Is there any way around that? (not being tinyurl savy). If it could be corrected, it would be so good for the history this thread preserves.

Addendum: I see you fixed this with a new link, missed that:
preview.tinyurl.com , Thanks.
edit on 23-12-2015 by charlyv because: added content

edit on 23-12-2015 by charlyv because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   
I would like to make some contribution to IsaacKoi's excellent thread.

I have found an interesting way of visualizing these scans by making pseudo-stereo pairs. You use the cross-eye technique to bring both images together. It is a stacking method using the same image in both eyes merged together. The resultant image does show more clarity and may help resolve a few of the real tough areas. I think it works much better than an anaglyph.

This can lead to a headache, so be careful.



For those that do not know how to do this, see: How to view 3D without glasses.

I think the technique could be useful on the many versions of the scans. Photoshop CS5 can also produce real stereo pairs, by simulating R/L parallax in software from a single image, which could produce an even better pair. If someone could try that and post a pair like above, it would be interesting.

edit on 23-12-2015 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I've seen no word on this in months, so I'm guessing these Ramey Memo new scans didn't advance things. For the Roswell promoters, that's the about best possible result, as it keeps things in the realm of interpretation.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I just came across this little research paper, which deals with techniques for enhancing the readability of low resolution text in images. I realise that this is a research paper that one has to pay to download, but some of the methods is also available in the abstract.


This paper presents a preliminary study on the human eye's perception of English document images, taken by mobile phone at various distances. In addition, a text enhancement technique using the combination of power-law transformation and morphological bottom hat filtering, following by morphological reconstruction and interpolation is also addressed. The results achieve an improved performance in OCR recognition rate.


Research paper

I am not an image wizard, but this might perhaps point someone in a direction that might yield some progress with this.
Maybe someone with a greater skill-set will know what these techinques discussed are and can continue from there.

I am, for the record, not in any way or form affiliated with the researchers or the paper, which I fully admit I have not read.

Just a suggestion, because I am slightly interested in what might or might not be read on the memo ;-)

BT
edit on 31-3-2016 by beetee because: Typos



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Well, I think there is one thing we can say for sure.

This letter doesn't say...

A bunch of intelligent people mistook a few ounces of foil and sticks.

For a SPACECRAFT apparently with a few dead ALIENS.

Back in those days when you were told to keep your mouth shut...You did.

Roswell happened. Maybe not exactly how they tell it in the books.

No New Mexican Rancher in those days drives 75 miles to show the AF that junk.



Right but the newspaper article that was retracted that said "Flying Saucer Recovered" or something similar to that describes what this "flying saucer" was made of. It goes on to say that besides broken foil it had flimsy eye beams and lots of rubber and scotch tape.
Of course this fact is left out of every documentary and book. But Brazle wandered onto the scene and describes some type of balloon project that crashed and the newspaper also said this. That's it, end of story.

The military wanted the article changed because they wanted it to be specifically called a weather balloon so the Russians wouldn't realize what project Mogal was, a balloon to detect nuclear explosions in the atmosphere.

Then 20 years later when S Freidman wrote his Roswell book people started telling silly tales.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Pinke



All the surveying really tells me is that it looks like something to most people, it doesn't tell me what it is.

Know of any message boards where some of this surveying took place? I would be interested in reading some discussion on it.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Not necessarily message board where official surveys took place, but here is a comparison of different attempts.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I had hoped more info would be forthcoming on the memo. But I guess there is no way to make it clearer



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Well, I think there is one thing we can say for sure.

This letter doesn't say...

A bunch of intelligent people mistook a few ounces of foil and sticks.

For a SPACECRAFT apparently with a few dead ALIENS.

Back in those days when you were told to keep your mouth shut...You did.

Roswell happened. Maybe not exactly how they tell it in the books.

No New Mexican Rancher in those days drives 75 miles to show the AF that junk.



Right but the newspaper article that was retracted that said "Flying Saucer Recovered" or something similar to that describes what this "flying saucer" was made of. It goes on to say that besides broken foil it had flimsy eye beams and lots of rubber and scotch tape.
Of course this fact is left out of every documentary and book. But Brazle wandered onto the scene and describes some type of balloon project that crashed and the newspaper also said this. That's it, end of story.

The military wanted the article changed because they wanted it to be specifically called a weather balloon so the Russians wouldn't realize what project Mogal was, a balloon to detect nuclear explosions in the atmosphere.

Then 20 years later when S Freidman wrote his Roswell book people started telling silly tales.


I'm sorry but you're mistaken...or worse...

Here is the text from the original article..

No Details of
Flying Disk
Are Revealed

Roswell Hardware
Man and Wife
Report Disk Seen

The intelligence office of the 509th Bombardment group at Roswell Army Air Field announced at noon today, that the field has come into possession of a flying saucer.

According to information released by the department, over authority of Maj. J. A. Marcel, intelligence officer, the disk was recovered on a ranch in the Roswell vicinity, after an unidentified rancher had notified Sheriff Geo. Wilcox, here, that he had found the instrument on his premises.

Major Marcel and a detail from his department went to the ranch and recovered the disk, it was stated.

After the intelligence officer here had inspected the instrument it was flown to higher headquarters.

The intelligence office stated that no details of the saucer's construction or its appearance had been revealed.

Mr. and Mrs. Dan Wilmot apparently were the only persons in Roswell who seen what they thought was a flying disk.

They were sitting on their porch at 105 South Penn. last Wednesday night at about ten o'clock when a large glowing object zoomed out of the sky from the southeast, going in a northwesterly direction at a high rate of speed.

Wilmot called Mrs. Wilmot's attention to it and both ran down into the yard to watch. It was in sight less then a minute, perhaps 40 or 50 seconds, Wilmot estimated.

Wilmot said that it appeared to him to be about 1,500 feet high and going fast. He estimated between 400 and 500 miles per hour.

In appearance it looked oval in shape like two inverted saucers, faced mouth to mouth, or like two old type washbowls placed, together in the same fashion. The entire body glowed as though light were showing through from inside, though not like it would inside, though not like it would be if a light were merely underneath.

From where he stood Wilmot said that the object looked to be about 5 feet in size, and making allowance for the distance it was from town he figured that it must have been 15 to 20 feet in diameter, though this was just a guess.

Wilmot said that he heard no sound but that Mrs. Wilmot said she heard a swishing sound for a very short time.

The object came into view from the southeast and disappeared over the treetops in the general vicinity of six mile hill.

Wilmot, who is one of the most respected and reliable citizens in town, kept the story to himself hoping that someone else would come out and tell about having seen one, but finally today decided that he would go ahead and tell about it. The announcement that the RAAF was in possession of one came only a few minutes after he decided to release the details of what he had seen.



It wasn't until the following day that an article describing what it was made of was published and it specifically stated that it was a weather balloon and mentioned General Ramey...

Jaden



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
The frustrating thing is that the resolution is just below the level where we can't quite pick out the key words that would either clarify the message, or at least give us some kind of context to extrapolate the rest of it.

As for "VICTIMS" being the only English word that will fit in the first sentence, I beg to differ.

Again, the key missing word here is indecipherable. Believe me, "WRECK" doesn't really fit unless you have a really strong confirmation bias. Otherwise, it kind of looks like "MA FPE."



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift
whats more plausable...."MA FPE" or WRECK in the letter?
It looks like the latter to me.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: Blue Shift
whats more plausable...."MA FPE" or WRECK in the letter?
It looks like the latter to me.

It would be plausible except for the clear and obvious fact right in front of your eyes that it doesn't work. What it could be is some kind of Army Air Force acronym or code with which we are completely unfamiliar, and that it is indicative of the reflector array that was connected to the balloon. "M1-IPC" or something like that.
edit on 16-5-2016 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift
what would MA FPE mean?
Maybe a space bar was hit by accident when typed,stranger things have been known to happen.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: Blue Shift
what would MA FPE mean?
Maybe a space bar was hit by accident when typed,stranger things have been known to happen.

See above. And yes, certainly, an accidental hit of a space bar could happen. It looks like there's an actual space there. But then "WRECK" really wouldn't fit.

Frustrating.







 
157
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join