Roswell Document?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
We all know the famous photos of Jesse marcel, Gen. Ramey and Col. Dubose with the alledged "crashed weather balloon". In Gen. Ramey's hand, there is a typed document that supposedly relates to the real story. At first only a few words were recognizable, and you couldnt zoom in clear enough to read any more than that. Has anyone actually figured out what was written on the document yet?






posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I really doubt it will ever be possible to figure out whats written on that thing from that image. The only thing to do would be to find the original paper...which...is trivial.

Probably impossible.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Actually, there are several claims to have made out words on the document. I'm sure there has been a discussion on ATS, but here are some external links. The second one is a scan of the document magnified, so you can read it for yourself.


Roswell proof

The message turns out to be a telegram from Gen. Ramey to the Pentagon and Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg, the acting AAF Chief of Staff at the time. Ramey is providing Vandenberg an update on the very fluid situation in-the-field at Roswell.

The first paragraph describes what had been found. Ramey starts by acknowledging "THAT A 'DISK' IS NEXT NEW FIND." He then adds that "THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK" and something else (possibly just "A WRECK") had also been found near the recovery "OPERATION AT THE 'RANCH'." At the end it states that "YOU" (i.e. Gen. Vandenberg) had ordered the "victims" and/or the wreckage "FORWARDED" to "FORT WORTH, TEX."


Hi-Res scan of 20x magnified _/url]

[url=http://www.ufocasebook.com/rameymemo.html]Roswell smoking gun, the Ramey memo



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Just a quick post to say that the claims to have identified some of the words in the Ramey message are _highly_ controversial within the ufo community.

Some material relating to that controversy can be found by Google searches for the "Roswell Photo Interpretation Team" (a team that has been trying to identify the relevant words).

You can also try searching for keywords such as "ramey wreck victims", using this link:
/ypso6s

The controversy has also been discussed by the authors of several books, including:

(1) Kevin D Randle in his “The Roswell Encyclopedia” (2000) at pages 293-306 (in an entry entitled “Ramey Message”) of the Quill softcover edition.

(2) Karl T Pflock in his “Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe” (2001) at pages 209-210, 211 (in Chapter 16) of the Prometheus hardback edition.

Kind Regards,

Isaac



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   
At first it looks really difficult to believe and as skeptics have pointed out that the note is open to any interpretation but looking on the UFO Casebook photo from the link above CLEARLY shows "And the victims of the wreck" on the note. Not sure about the "Disc" word though, looks like a bit of a long shot. It's also worth bearing in mind that the statement claiming "victims" doesn't necessarily mean "Extraterrestrials" but could have been USAF victims from a possible experiment gone wrong.

I definately believe some of the note interpretation.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
[T]he claims to have identified some of the words in the Ramey message are _highly_ controversial within the ufo community.

Some material relating to that controversy can be found by Google searches for the "Roswell Photo Interpretation Team" (a team that has been trying to identify the relevant words).


I have to agree. Why would he be carrying such a memo mentioning bodies to a press conference having nothing to do with the crash site, where a large number of press might possibly see it? I can imagine that tensions would be riding high in a press conference like that.

Furthermore, the technology that was used to find the words worked by blowing up the picture. However, of course, one can only blow up the picture so large before the interference in the negative or the copy renders it a blur. Even if they had the negative which would give them the best image to enhance, but which in this case I don't think they did (I may be wrong about that) the credibility of the analysis is hurt. After blowing up the picture, the contents of the letter were, in my opinion, extrapolated based on speculation and wishful thinking. Maybe someday technology will progress to where such an analysis will be practical, but unfortunately not yet.



new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join