The Ramey Memo: Best Roswell Evidence Ever Found

Originally posted by Monts
Hi everyone...

Here is a video documenting what I believe is the "smoking gun" of the Roswell Incident:

The Ramey Memo
(snip)

Yeah, a cap gun!

I'm sure that anyone who has read my comments re: Roswell claims that a UFO crashed near Roswell and the modern brouhaha is just so much smoke and mirrors. No one wants to really research it and go to the original sources and not see why certain words were used for newspaper coverage during and after the event. I do not accept one iota of any pro-UFO/aliens claims and accept that a secret balloon project is what happened near Roswell taking into consideration the cold war and what was going on between the U.S. and Russia and the "primitive" spying technology being used.

So, for those of you who buy the OP's presentation and Rudiak's claims, here is a breath of fresh air to make you think and not be a blind believer.

www.nmsr.org...
New Mexicans for Science and Reason
Bait and Switch on 'Roswell: The Smoking Gun’
by Dave Thomas
Originally published in the Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 2003...

(The Shrike: scroll down to the following)
So, what was the Sci Fi Channel's shocking new evidence? As John Fleck described it in his Nov. 23rd story, "The most dramatic 'smoking gun' in Friday's show came in the form of a piece of paper in an Army officer's hand in a 1947 photo. A UFO researcher, David Rudiak, claims a computer enhancement of the photo allowed him to read about 'victims' and a crashed disk in the old memo. Critics say Rudiak's analysis, published first on the Internet at least a year ago, is little more than fuzzy blobs in the blown-up images interpreted to suit his preconceived notions about Roswell. 'It's totally subjective,' said Dave Thomas, a Peralta physicist and longtime Roswell crash skeptic. 'The 'smoking gun' is just suggestive wishful thinking.' ..." (Fleck 2002B)

(The Shrike: there's more and it gets better so go to the website. Only a wishful thinker as Rudiak gives the impression of being, can make any sense of the blowup of the Ramey memo. I do NOT see "Vanderberg" nor
"victims" nor "discs/disks" of anything legible. If Rudiak were to use the enhancements seen in biblical documentaries where various lightwaves are used to decipher ancient manuscripts too blurry to read or incomplete word characters might he have a better chance at making out the real words and not his pareidolic decipherment.)

Originally posted by GirlGenius
reply to post by Monts

 

This is a great video, confirming what we all know! S&F

I wish the mainstream would talk about it in the open now. It's getting silly already

Actually, it's replies such as yours that's getting silly already and from the beginning. A critical thinker you are not. A gullible believer? You betcha.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Monts
It is "disc" in the memo... I guess the youtube member doesn't know how to spell "disc" the right way. I'll post a few pics of the memo to clear things up.

Here's one they claim is the c version of disc, but I'm not sure it's all that legible:
(snip)
But assuming it says disc, you all know that's not referring to a flying saucer but the balloon wreckage, right? Note they even put it in quotation marks showing that's what everyone was calling it but they knew that's not what it really was.

From "The Roswell Report", (1995) page 22, the FBI memo is mentioned that describes the "disc" resembles a weather balloon:
(snip)
So it's interesting to see the way they say it resembles a balloon with a radar reflector, yet still calling it a disc "suspended from a balloon".

edit on 25-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

I do not see "DISC" from the jumble and it looks more like "THE WRECK". So there's no need in guessing. It either reads "DISC" or the more logical answer would be "I have no idea what it says." And a balloon description as is indicated sounds more like what "Mac" Brazel found and was carted away. Trust me, if a real UFO had crashed and whether bodies were recovered or not just finding the debris of an alien craft would have changed history forever and it would have never survived secrecy.

my father lived next to wright Patterson air force base when all of this happen.
And till this very day he will tell people how they blocked the road's and stuff and hauled something into the base,
and it was covered and resembled a disk.
and everyone who saw it figured it was the ufo from roswell.

so idk if it real or not lol

Originally posted by TheAmused
my father lived next to wright Patterson air force base when all of this happen.
And till this very day he will tell people how they blocked the road's and stuff and hauled something into the base,
and it was covered and resembled a disk.
and everyone who saw it figured it was the ufo from roswell.

so idk if it real or not lol

Yeah, and when you were a little boy he told you about Santa Claus, the boogeyman, the man in the moon, and other stories to entertain you and he must love to entertain still as he must enjoy seeing peoples' faces when they're told something out of the ordinary. I do it to my wife and I lover her expression except when I reveal the truth. There's a little devil inside all of us. It's only human.

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by TheAmused
my father lived next to wright Patterson air force base when all of this happen.
And till this very day he will tell people how they blocked the road's and stuff and hauled something into the base,
and it was covered and resembled a disk.
and everyone who saw it figured it was the ufo from roswell.

so idk if it real or not lol

Yeah, and when you were a little boy he told you about Santa Claus, the boogeyman, the man in the moon, and other stories to entertain you and he must love to entertain still as he must enjoy seeing peoples' faces when they're told something out of the ordinary. I do it to my wife and I lover her expression except when I reveal the truth. There's a little devil inside all of us. It's only human.

You're being patronizing, and presumptuous. There's a significantly big difference between trying to convince a child of Santa, and telling a story you made up again and again over several decades. And to be fair, he did say he didn't know whether or not the story was true.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Monts
As you can see, it is still a kind of guessing game... however as the researcher in the video notes, he is able to confidently transcribe about 80% of the message. For some of the words, such as "victims", in which some letters are illegible, using the legible letters and then "filling in the blanks" to make logical assumptions is more than good enough for revealing the message.

I agree some letters are legible, but I also agree it's a guessing game for the rest, and 80% is overly optimistic. Do you know a study was done on this memo to see how much of it can really be read?

www.scientificexploration.org...

investigators of this
document suggested, however, that it was ambiguous stimuli being interpreted
by pro-Roswell investigators in accordance with their expectations. To assess
the possible extent of bias in these interpretations, we had three randomly assigned
groups of participants attempt to decipher the document under different
suggestion conditions: one condition in which we told participants (N = 59)
they were looking at a document pertaining to the famous Roswell UFO case, a
second condition in which we told participants (N = 58) that they were looking
at a document pertaining to secret testing of the atomic bomb, and a final condition
in which participants (N = 59) were told nothing about the possible content
of the document.

Many participants indeed claimed to be able to read the document,
although their subsequent solutions appeared to follow directly from the
experimental suggestions. Moreover, the number of words deciphered was related
to participants’ ages, tolerance of ambiguity, and relative exposure to the
UFO field and especially the Roswell case. However, a few words in the same
locations in the document were consistently perceived across the three suggestion
conditions and these matched the words identified in previous investigations.
We conclude therefore that future research of Ramey memo might be potentially
informative if certain methodological criteria are established. Such
protocols are outlined.

In other words when people were told the memo was about an atomic bomb, they found unique words in that context in the memo like "flash" "atomic", and "laboratory", whereas the people that were told about a crashed UFO not surprisingly found the words "crash" and "UFO" which the atomic group didn't find.

Regardless of what else you make of this study, it blows the 80% legibility claim out of the water. On the other hand, the study confirms that some words are legible across all three study groups, such as "story", "Fort Worth TX", and "balloons" in the blind group vs "weather balloons" in the other two groups.

edit on 25-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo

The Randle/Houran study is a total disaster of bungled statistics, inept experimental design, and faulty peer review, which should have rejected this paper outright. If you want to see all the serious problems with it, read this critique carefully:

roswellproof.com...

Quick summary:
1. Although Randle/Houran claim there is a major biasing or "priming effect" from different contexts, their actual data shows exactly the opposite. The real statistics show that maybe 1% of all words read were probably strongly influenced by context. The rest of their so-called "exclusive"-to-context words were actually quite neutral. (E.g., how are words like "meaning", "morning", "remains", or "fundamental" somehow biased by a "Roswell" or "atomic" context? And how can the one and only "exclusive" word "flew" in the control group, who were told *nothing at all*, be "biased" or "primed" by anything? )

2. In fact, they provide only 10 words total out of about 550 words total that are supposedly "bias" words. Throw out the obviously neutral ones, and you're down to maybe 5 or 6 out of 550. How does 1% "prove" that readers were reading only according to their expectations? Please explain.

3. When one peer reviewer asked them for the actual numbers of each "primed" word, they admit they didn't have the numbers, because allegedly their graduate student threw out the data. No kidding! What sort of peer review accepts a paper where they don't even have the proper data to back up their main conclusion?

4. They don't even talk about half the words read, which they call "other words", neither "exclusive" to a group or "common" across all groups ("common" words being like "weather balloons" and "Fort Worth, Tex."). If they are neither exclusive nor common, what in the world could they be? Probably totally neutral, simple, short, common words like "the", "and", "of", etc., that make up about half the words used in English, many of which are relatively easy to pick out. In other words, these "other words" are almost certainly many more "common" words that Randle/Houran seem to have deliberately ignored because they further undercuts their claim of huge reader bias and lack of common readings.

5. Context DOES matter. The Roswell group was far superior to picking out the clearer "common words" that even Randle/Houran are forced to admit are probably there, again words like "weather balloons", "Fort Worth, Tex.", "story", and "land". In fact they were 2-1/2 times better than the "atomic" group, even though spending only slightly more time at the task. Was this important and hugely obvious effect discussed? Barely, then completely ignored, because it obviously again undercut their thesis that people were reading almost entirely due to bias, and that context should be eliminated completely in future studies. Obviously context helps enormously, just as it does in real life language tasks where there is ambiguity, such as understanding conversations in noisy rooms, listening to radio broadcasts that are fading and full of static, or reading bad handwriting.

6. There are many other serious problems with this paper, such as very short time spent by readers on the task, lack of enhanced images for them to use, more bungled statistics like identical, impossible standard deviations for words read per reader in each group (which Houran was finally forced to admit they had bungled), and on and on.

Of course already biased and gullible pseudoskeptics, who also don't know how to read a science paper properly to check for flaws, or don't bother to read it at all, will cite only the abstract where Randle/Houran claim to prove a major biasing effect and little agreement across readers, even though the actual data prove the opposite is true. Their conclusions were based on data they ignored, distorted, and admitted didn't even exist any more (allegedly thrown out by the convenient scapegoat grad student). Then they used these obviously nonsense conclusions to debunk the Ramey memo. This paper demonstrates extreme experimenter bias and a lack of due diligence, competence, critical thinking, and/or intellectual integrity on their part and those of the debunkers who cite them.

reply to post by The Shrike


Then you're saying the guy (Jesse Marcel) who was there for both the recovery at the crash site and the press conference, is flat out lieing and incompetent. Watch the 1984 interview with Jesse Marcel that was posted on page 2 of this thread. He says in no uncertain terms..."we were told to tell the newsman to forget about it and that it was a weather observation balloon. Of course, we both knew otherwise."

Originally posted by futureproof

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by TheAmused
my father lived next to wright Patterson air force base when all of this happen.
And till this very day he will tell people how they blocked the road's and stuff and hauled something into the base,
and it was covered and resembled a disk.
and everyone who saw it figured it was the ufo from roswell.

so idk if it real or not lol

Yeah, and when you were a little boy he told you about Santa Claus, the boogeyman, the man in the moon, and other stories to entertain you and he must love to entertain still as he must enjoy seeing peoples' faces when they're told something out of the ordinary. I do it to my wife and I lover her expression except when I reveal the truth. There's a little devil inside all of us. It's only human.

You're being patronizing, and presumptuous. There's a significantly big difference between trying to convince a child of Santa, and telling a story you made up again and again over several decades. And to be fair, he did say he didn't know whether or not the story was true.

Gray Spalding had a great career as a storyteller. Nothing wrong with that. But those hearing the stories have to judge veracity or creativity. When it comes to certain subjects, creativity should be considered over veracity.

The army interviewed one of the aliens from the crashed wreck. A nurse conducted the interview and kept all the transcripts. In 2008 before she died she forwarded her notes to an author and he wrote a book on it. Here it is for the first time ever on ATS. The alien interview.

*SNIP*

Link removed due to content..
Semper

Originally posted by shasta9600
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Then you're saying the guy (Jesse Marcel) who was there for both the recovery at the crash site and the press conference, is flat out lieing and incompetent. Watch the 1984 interview with Jesse Marcel that was posted on page 2 of this thread. He says in no uncertain terms..."we were told to tell the newsman to forget about it and that it was a weather observation balloon. Of course, we both knew otherwise."

Exactly ! The Major Jesse Marcel interview nails this one to the wall for me . Everything else including the memo in the photos just collaborates the fact that a disk crashed in Roswell.

Originally posted by resverlogix
The army interviewed one of the aliens from the crashed wreck. A nurse conducted the interview and kept all the transcripts. In 2008 before she died she forwarded her notes to an author and he wrote a book on it. Here it is for the first time ever on ATS. The alien interview.

[link removed due to content]

Excerpt from book which was written in 2008

"Airl told me her reasons for coming to Earth and for
being in the area of the 509th Bomber Squadron. 57 (Footnote)
She was sent by her superior officers to investigate the
explosions of nuclear weapons which have been tested in
New Mexico. 58 (Footnote) Her superiors ordered her to gather
information from the atmosphere that could be used to
determine the extent of radiation 59 (Footnote) and potential
harm this might cause to the environment.

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Monts
It is "disc" in the memo... I guess the youtube member doesn't know how to spell "disc" the right way. I'll post a few pics of the memo to clear things up.

Here's one they claim is the c version of disc, but I'm not sure it's all that legible:
(snip)
But assuming it says disc, you all know that's not referring to a flying saucer but the balloon wreckage, right? Note they even put it in quotation marks showing that's what everyone was calling it but they knew that's not what it really was.

From "The Roswell Report", (1995) page 22, the FBI memo is mentioned that describes the "disc" resembles a weather balloon:
(snip)
So it's interesting to see the way they say it resembles a balloon with a radar reflector, yet still calling it a disc "suspended from a balloon".

edit on 25-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

I do not see "DISC" from the jumble and it looks more like "THE WRECK". So there's no need in guessing. It either reads "DISC" or the more logical answer would be "I have no idea what it says." And a balloon description as is indicated sounds more like what "Mac" Brazel found and was carted away. Trust me, if a real UFO had crashed and whether bodies were recovered or not just finding the debris of an alien craft would have changed history forever and it would have never survived secrecy.

But is it really surviving secrecy anyway? I mean, assuming we don't know if a UFO was found or if bodies were found, we still know about the story right. We know about the possibility of it actually occurring as opposed to being totally oblivious to it. I don't buy the idea or the notion that "trust me we would've heard about it by now."

The real reason we don't get confirmation of things like Roswell is because, well, it's the government who's in control of the information. If they deny the story of Roswell, then they deny it. But we do have testimonies of both military and government personel who agree it was a cover up.

So all that we can do at this point is look at the evidence and make our decisions like a court of law. With the evidence against the government's official statement on Roswell, I have a good feeling we would win in court.

Originally posted by shasta9600
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Then you're saying the guy (Jesse Marcel) who was there for both the recovery at the crash site and the press conference, is flat out lieing and incompetent. Watch the 1984 interview with Jesse Marcel that was posted on page 2 of this thread. He says in no uncertain terms..."we were told to tell the newsman to forget about it and that it was a weather observation balloon. Of course, we both knew otherwise."

Roswell happened in 1947. Shortly after it was forgotten. 37 years later a participant showing signs of dementia says something that cannot be relied upon to have happened 37 earlier. Do some research on Marcel Sr., and ignore his son's ramblings, he's in it for the notoriety and the money.

Here is some material I edited for you (in brackets []) found at Wikipedia but since were dealing with checkable facts you can accept it as being honestly reported. After you read it, will you still think that a crashed UFO is being discussed? This is only the tip of the iceberg. Read "ROSWELL: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe" by Karl T. Pflock. Possibly the best book about Roswell but it's not for believers, it'll piss them off because the truth is not as convenient as fantasy.

[Bessie Brazel, Mac's daughter, had helped recover the debris. (snip) She also signed an affidavit that had additional descriptions: "The debris looked like pieces of a large balloon which had burst. The pieces were small, the largest I remember measuring was about the same as the diameter of a basketball. Most of it was a kind of double-sided material, foil-like on one side and rubber-like on the other. Both sides were grayish silver in color, the foil more silvery than the rubber. Sticks, like kite sticks, were attached to some of the pieces with a whitish tape. The foil-rubber material could not be torn like ordinary aluminum foil can be torn." [5]

Son Bill Brazel Jr. confirmed some of what Bessie said. (snip)

[edit] Sheridan Cavitt and Lewis Rickett’s testimony
Sheridan Cavitt of the Roswell Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) was identified by Marcel as assisting him in investigating the crash and recovering debris, (snip) Cavitt said the crash site was tiny, about the size of his living room or "20 feet square." "It was a small amount of, as I recall, bamboo sticks, reflective sort of material that would, at first glance, you would probably think it was aluminum foil, something of that type and we gathered up some of it. I don't know whether we even tried to get all of it. It wasn’t scattered; well, what I call, you know, extensively." [9]

[edit] Roswell and Fort Worth base witnesses
Sgt. Robert Porter: B-29 flight engineer. Porter helped load and was on the B-29 flight from Roswell to Fort Worth, where Marcel was supposed to show some recovered material to Gen. Roger Ramey before proceeding on to Wright Field, Ohio. "I was involved in loading the B-29 with the material, which was wrapped in packages with wrapping paper. One of the pieces was triangle shaped, about 2 1/2 feet across the bottom. The rest were in small packages about the size of a shoebox. The brown paper was held with tape ... The material was extremely lightweight. When I picked it up, it was just like picking up an empty package. We loaded the triangle shaped package and three shoe box-sized packages into the plane. All of the packages could have fit into the trunk of a car." [10]

1st Lt. Robert Shirkey: The base assistant operations officer. Shirkey also witnessed debris being loaded onto the B-29. "...Standing only three feet from the passing procession, we saw boxes full of aluminum-looking metal pieces being carried to the B-29. Major Marcel came along carrying an open box full of what seemed to be scrap metal. It obviously was not aluminum: it did not shine nor reflect like the aluminum on American military airplanes.
(snip)
Two witnesses were brought into Ramey's office and told the debris they saw came from Roswell.

J. Bond Johnson: Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporter/photographer, took six photographs of the debris in Ramey’s office, posed with Ramey, Dubose, and Marcel. He said: "It wasn’t an impressive sight, just some aluminum-like foil, balsa wood sticks, and some burnt rubber that was stinking up the office." Johnson said Ramey told him, "We've found out... it's a weather balloon." [13]

Why isn't this in the news today as proof of aliens?

reply to post by The Shrike


You're telling me that a group of men from one of the most advanced air fields of that time, misidentified and were confused by a big kite made from balsa wood and rubber. Unreal. You've got me convinced.

Originally posted by shasta9600
You're telling me that a group of men from one of the most advanced air fields of that time, misidentified and were confused by a big kite made from balsa wood and rubber.

Sounds to me like they had it identified pretty well back when it happened in 1947.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
From "The Roswell Report", (1995) page 22, the FBI memo is mentioned that describes the "disc" resembles a weather balloon:

the telegram from
the Dallas FBI office of July 8,1947. This document quoted in part states: “. . The disc is hexagonal in shape and was suspended from a balloon by a cable, which balloon was approximately twenty feet in diameter... the object found resembles a high altitude weather balloon with a radar reflector... disc and balloon being transported...”

I don't see any confusion in that memo. Who says they were confused?

All the BS happened decades later.

Out of curiousity, are you a debunker, or are you a researcher? The reason I ask is because the evidence to suggest a crash of a UFO in rosewell far outweighs the evidence against it. So it takes alot of trouble to actually debunk it.

Just curious.

reply to post by The Shrike

That is the flaw with your logic.

On one hand, you criticize those who assume aliens or whatever.

But on the other hand, you equally assume that the gov't story is legit.

Neither side has any real proof, only circumstantial evidence.

The problem here is that you will think you are right 100%, without having BEEN THERE YOURSELF TO KNOW FOR SURE, and then proceed to slam on others for disagreeing.

There is nothing different from you, or a alien believer who refuses to ask questions, or some religious zealot fanatic who believes in invisible things. No difference...

You all believe in a bunch of stuff without knowing in reality either way. It's faith based religion.

For those of us with at least a little common sense left, we are undecided.
Being undecided means that we admit we do not have enough hard evidence to claim it was a balloon or a spacecraft. It admits ambiguity.

The only way to know for sure, was to BE THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. Everything else is rumor and speculation.

There is nothing different between a blind fanatic believing the Gov't official story and a blind believer swearing they know for sure it was aliens. It's absurd.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Out of curiousity, are you a debunker, or are you a researcher? The reason I ask is because the evidence to suggest a crash of a UFO in rosewell far outweighs the evidence against it. So it takes alot of trouble to actually debunk it.

Just curious.

reply to post by The Shrike

 

He hasn't debunked anything except himself.

By claiming to Know for sure it was a balloon, he discredits himself.

Only people who were there when it happened, know what it was for sure.

Everyone else assumes to know. And that is a logical fallacy.

Also ravenously attacking those whom you disagree with, when neither side has cold hard irrefutable evidence, is a sign of desperation.

I just don't understand why people hate mysteries so much. They just have to act like they know everything, despite having no actual way of knowing such things.