It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


General Ramey Memo

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2003 @ 12:45 PM
First, a link:

There was a special on one of the educational channels where they went to Roswell, and started looking for missed debris... Anyhow, it turned out like Geraldo's Al Capone Vault, but another section of the show dealt with the "Ramey Memo". This is the memo he was holding in the infamous pictures with the weather balloon debris. They think they might now be able to decipher it, though I think some of it is reaching...some words do seem pretty clear.

(Ironically, the researchers did find some weather balloon debris at the Roswell site!!! However, it was not 50 years old, hehe....)

posted on Jan, 16 2003 @ 01:27 PM
the date on that report was 31 Oct 2000. I'm sure more has gone on since then. Was there a second investigation by the Woods father and son team which managed to extract more data? I think its still on going but I'm sure there was a more recent attempt and that provided more.

posted on Jan, 16 2003 @ 01:38 PM
Even if more has gone on does n`t look like it could be all that serious or it would have come out somewhere.

This memo seems a little sketchy to me, however I`m contacting MUFON to see if they have news....

posted on Jan, 16 2003 @ 02:39 PM
during the Roswell: New Evidence special. It was either on TLC or the Discovery channel, if it helps in your digging... In any case, the words that can be made out well are pretty intriguing....such as "disc" and "victims".

I still say that even Gomer Pyle can tell the difference between a crashed craft vs. balsa wood and foil...

posted on Jan, 16 2003 @ 02:50 PM
Have found this rather interesting site with more on the memo. this link even shows the enhanced memo, as I said looks sketchy you could also make of the words what you want

worth looking at the x20 blow up

posted on Jan, 16 2003 @ 03:42 PM
that the majority of words could be anything, but the ones you can make out reasonably well, are the ones that really make you think...

posted on Jan, 16 2003 @ 04:01 PM
of an experimental government aircraft. would the word victims be used if these were EBEs??? maybe it indicates human rather than alien involvement.

posted on Jan, 17 2003 @ 05:14 AM
George A Filer the man who originally posted this article has kindly replied and informs me that he considers that there have been no significant developments with this memo since the original report was filed in october 2000

posted on Jan, 17 2003 @ 07:42 AM
cassini, cool. I'm gonna check a couple of things this weekend if I get time. On the victims point. I think its plausible, after all the term Extra-Terrestrial Biological Entity didn't really exist then did it. Another point to consider is that at that time the responding office were not as well informed as those on the base where the debris and bodies were taken. I think 'victims' is a viable word at that time, other possible words would have been 'bodies', 'pilots'?, and possibly 'creatures'. The mindset that prevails now just didn't exist then hence the probable screw up by releasing news of the saucer in the first place and then retracting it at a later date. Everything was in a state of flux and the rules were being set as they went along.

posted on Jan, 17 2003 @ 01:54 PM
Was n`t really suugesting that they would call them EBEs but victim seems to be such a mundane term for something which (most people) would have you believe is such an extra ordinary event. Remember this was a crash and someone may have the kindess to refer to victims rather than pilots. One thing that comes over from this is that they were very much in control of the situation and that the rules had already been set as per (perhaps) normal military procedure

posted on Jan, 19 2003 @ 12:47 PM
following on from all this I contacted Stan Friedman concerning the ramey memo and the article from, here`s his reply,

"The posting below (from is well out of date. I approve of David Rudiak's newest
evaluation (discussed on the Recent Sc-Fi TV Roswell show and posted on his
website). I had had high resolution scans of the original negative done in
Dallas a few years ago. and distributed them in CD Rom format with other
scans of the pictures..I like his approach.
Stan Friedman

this link still remains the best i have found

hope this helps....

posted on Jan, 20 2003 @ 07:48 AM
I have to disagree on the statement that they were "very much in control of the situation and that the rules had already been set as per (perhaps) normal military procedure"

Why firstly, confirm that there is a flying saucer that has been captured then retract it to replace it with a balloon story?
Why talk to a ranch worker and then let him go so that he can talk to the loca radio station and then pick him up, threaten him in various ways and keep him locked up against his will for a week before releasing him?
Why did they not suppress reports on the wires until they had a firm response to the press' questions?

Are you saying that the USAAF had a procedure for the recovery and transportation of crashed disks in 1947? If they did, would it not make more sense to suppress any information by claiming National security until they had been told exactly what to do?

The only normal military procedure that seems to have been followed here is that each officer that dealt with the crash referred to their superiors for actions to take and then attempted to deal with situations until they had been briefed. Which is where the mistakes crept in.

I think the point is, that this wasn't a normal situation and therefore there was hardly any normal military procedures that could be applied at that time.

AS for calling the dead, 'victims', well I suggested a couple of names but they seem less appropriate. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the officer that has to report this to up on high. What do you call them? Could the reply not have been referencing the term used in the original memo asking for guidance so that there are no problems of miscommunication between the parties? Perhaps, once some rules had been established as to 'who needs to know' they decided to use language that was more mundane that sensationalist 'alien bodies', 'craft occupants' etc..?

posted on Jan, 20 2003 @ 08:22 AM
"Why firstly, confirm that there is a flying saucer that has been captured then retract it to replace it with a balloon story?" there may be several for this, if you had a highly secret and revolutionary type of aircraft that you were testing, you would n`t want foreign agents to get hold of the information, the best route here would be to cloud everyone with so much disinformation that even the witnesses could tell you exactly what was seen. By planting ideas and disinformation in those who had seen it, any investigation of this is doomed to failure. Another may be if it were an experimental craft and people had died in ityou may not want a senate/public (not sure how these things are done in America) investigation in to why soo many pilots were dying, which may release sensitive information in to the public domain and thence to your enemies.

"Are you saying that the USAAF had a procedure for the recovery and transportation of crashed disks in 1947? If they did, would it not make more sense to suppress any information by claiming National security until they had been told exactly what to do?"

On this I reckon they did, UFOs have been a not so well publicised part of human history for many thousands of years and a government like the USA would certainly have been aware of such things. It does n`t seem unreasonable that they may have got craft in the past and had a way to deal with this. It may be that people like Marcel could have known of previous encounters and wanted to try to get this in to the publics view. This then would mean the USAAF would have to embark on their dis info campaign. With such events as this the impetous lies with the authorities due to the scepitical nature of the public.

For myself I firmly believe that this was a proper UFO event , and in the main I agree with you.

posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 02:10 AM

Even though this is an old thread, I still think there's more to say about this..

About two issues ago, the International UFO Reporter did a story about all the attempts to decipher the memo from that photo. Basically, they said that there were something like 5 different translations, though they had many things in common ("recovered 'disc'" for example). They also did an objectivity study wherein they asked three different groups what they thought the magnified message said (the group who didn't know the story just saw the air bases mentioned in the telegraph, I believe).

Anyways, this is a pretty interesting story.
PS: For all those that don't know what we're talking about, in the photo where Gen. Ramey and Marcell are holding up a weather balloon, that Ramey said was the Roswell 'saucer', the general is holding a freshly received telegram. In 1947, it was impossible to read what it said, but, today.... with, ironically, computer tech we may have gotten from the roswell wreck...).

posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 03:45 AM
"Even though this is an old thread, I still think there's more to say about this.."

even if we knew the truth I`m sure we would n`t run out of things to say about it. Do you know if there is a link to the article? I`ve just had a look for one but the searches seem to suggest international UFO reporter is not on the web.

posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 06:57 AM
One who is harmed or killed by another: a victim of a mugging.
A living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice during a religious rite.
One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.
A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.

OK.. so victim obviously suggests a catalyst to be an outside force. This suggests to me that, maybe the craft was attacked, shot down, maybe by the US Army.

What do you reckon?

posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 08:05 AM
its a good point but you can also be the victim of an accident. Victim is a broadly used term when talking of crashes so I`m not sure it indicates that much. The words victims on there is crucial though as the US services constantly deny anything happened other than a ballon crashing, the use of victims does say rather strikingly that something happened.

I`m still at a loss over this memo, it would appear to be the corner stone of an attempt to get the US gov to tell the truth but it seems to have relatively little exposure. It leaves me wondering if there is a doubt in many minds over the validity of the analysis of it.

posted on Jun, 23 2003 @ 01:53 AM

I thought IUR was on the web (or at least its back issues). I know a guy who is the assistant science director at CUFOS... I'll ask him if I can re-type some of the more important stuff and post it up here (I'm not sure about the copyright issues).

Yeah, that's a good point about the way the word 'victim' is used. Beyond the US military, might another alien group have caused them to come down? There are reports that TWO ships crashed during the roswell incident (though the second wasn't found till later on in that version of the story). Might there have been a collision between ships flown by two groups (or a battle?). The Majestic docs (mentioned in another nearby thread), mention two types of 'greys' who were working independly of each other, and eyewitnesses, over the years, have seen more than one 'race' or species of grey... so might they, at that time, have been duking it out over access to human resources (gentic, I presume)?

Just a loose theory.

posted on Jun, 26 2003 @ 01:33 AM
I've just seen this for the first time in this format and find it quite interesting as the wording suggests that the US do indeed have something from Roswell that isnt of their making. As to using the term EBEs I dont think that this expression was around back in the fortys (I may be wrong) so I would have thought they would have used victims dont you?

The telegram that can be seen in the photo is only now, using computers, being able to be read after a fashion but who knows that in a few more years we may be able to read it all without getting the wrong interpretation as to its meaning, or there again the US government may just let us see the original letter. As for having several means to certain words then this will still be the case until we can see the telegram in full.

posted on Jun, 30 2003 @ 09:20 AM
was thought to be coined by the "working group" which later went on to become MJ-12. It has been around since right after the Roswell days, and is not a recent addition to the verbage, but it didn't exist until shortly after the term "victim" is certainly plausible. Not to mention, you would be more likely to use ambiguous words in a memo, than spelling everything out, on an issue of such magnitude...

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in