The Ramey Memo

[TSS]

If you really truly think that aliens can make it here from wherever, crossing staggering distances through space - which means they must at least fly at light-speed, AT LEAST....and remember going at light speed makes space debris/asteroids pretty hard to swerve around... in a highly advanced ship with advanced propulsion systems, whatever they may be.... only to make it here and crash....when there isnt exactly a lot to crash into in the sky....then I think that belief is totaly flawed and outrageous to be honest.

I hear ya! However, we have sent probes all the way to other planets, and messed up the landing to the point of it being lost (beagle).....granted, we're not flying at light speed etc....but space travel has major problems and obstacles from the moment you leave the ground to the moment you touch ground again.

[quillius]

heres another take, Ive selected some paragraphs, but the full article really needs reading

"Attempts have been made over the years to enlarge that portion of the photograph. The text however remains at the extreme limit of resolution. A few words do seem to be visible, asserting the document’s relevance to the Roswell incident, but little else is clear".

If the Ramey document were not a classified message but a news wire, none of the above secrecy scenario would matter at all. Which option would Occam’s Razor cut off? In summary, it has been demonstrated that:

Line 3 of the Ramey document has a phrase "…AT FORT WORTH, TEX."

The words "..THE ‘DISC’.." with DISC in quotes appears on line 4.

The phrase "…WARREN HAUGHT, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER AT ROSWELL, SAID." is the best reading of line 5 of the text because the word count, letter count, punctuation and meaningful context fit and make sense. It is very likely that this phrase refers to the text on line 4.

All can be shown to come from journalistic news accounts rather than from military/government documents. If you do not think this interpretation is fitting, I offer a challenge: have line 5 make grammatical sense with different letters, words and phrasing.

Much credit is due Mary Castner, Victor Golubic and Joel Carpenter for valuable computer assistance and comment.

Kindly rerad the full page for the whole story

http://kevinrandle.b...-greenwood.html

.

ok now were cooking

when you say make line five make sense, can I confirm you are asking to change any/all letters but keeping the number of letters and any comas punctuation the same/?

[bmk1245]

home, sweet home bmk (I guess its a type of confirmation bias

[...]

Yup.

On the serious note, few points:

1) carelessness, pointed out by Rafterman;

2) he was "dragging" that message through few photo shots (heck, maybe he had habit to carry fork around the house after dinner, who knows...);

3) folding - I don't know how about you, but I usually fold paper, I've already read, with text being inwards, here we have "large bills" outside (maybe something was scribbled on the blank side?).

[quillius]

I hear ya! However, we have sent probes all the way to other planets, and messed up the landing to the point of it being lost (beagle).....granted, we're not flying at light speed etc....but space travel has major problems and obstacles from the moment you leave the ground to the moment you touch ground again.

Hey Sky, I guess we can also throw dimensional travel into the mix.

what about us humans managing to get an aircraft into the air, cover great distances etc and then be brought down by a 'bird'?

Also how much more dangerous would the journey be for our probes if we also had to avoid any aggression by other beings in addition to the standard perils that we try and protect against?

[seeder]

ok now were cooking

when you say make line five make sense, can I confirm you are asking to change any/all letters but keeping the number of letters and any comas punctuation the same/?

When I say? ha I was quoting the article! I recommend it gets read in its entirety!! Some good info in there, especially as it also compares other translations/opinions side by side etc

eta article link

http://kevinrandle.b...-greenwood.html

.

Edited July 3, 2013 by seeder

[quillius]

Yup.

On the serious note, few points:

1) carelessness, pointed out by Rafterman;

2) he was "dragging" that message through few photo shots (heck, maybe he had habit to carry fork around the house after dinner, who knows...);

3) folding - I don't know how about you, but I usually fold paper, I've already read, with text being inwards, here we have "large bills" outside (maybe something was scribbled on the blank side?).

serious note or memo ?

1- IF it was a saucer, and IF they were aliens, IF there was a mistake made in letting the paper print about saucers...all this going on with a rush to produce a cover story......would we really stop to think that a photo will be able to decipher some of the memo in hand....? would you even be aware and think of this aspect as you read memo then quickly swoop down to get a photo for the cover story?

2- not sure what you mean here??

3-he had coverd the real juicy stuff maybe? he folded it to read as the bottom half contained no text. As you suggested there was further notes on other side.

this is the problem with speculation IMO...

[quillius]

When I say? ha I was quoting the article! I recommend it gets read in its entirety!! Some good info in there, especially as it also compares other translations/opinions side by side etc

eta article link

http://kevinrandle.b...-greenwood.html

.

I had read 4/5ths and was interupted by member of staff.....anyhow, If you agree and understand the question posed in the article that you relayed in bold type.....can you confirm the points I asked clarity on? (in your opinion)

[quillius]

hmmm....just thought...doesnt this interpretation i.e. Haught (being spelt incorrectly by the paper) stack up? they had it correctly written the next day in the first article about a crashed saucer.....

edit to add: actually I think I am wrong and they had it incorrectly written in the article also.....this adds credence to it being misspelt again....

Edited July 3, 2013 by quillius

[quillius]

All can be shown to come from journalistic news accounts rather than from military/government documents. If you do not think this interpretation is fitting, I offer a challenge: have line 5 make grammatical sense with different letters, words and phrasing.

http://kevinrandle.b...-greenwood.html

Seeder, did you scroll down and read all the thread and posts by others? including David with an interesting rebuttal to the proposed sentence by Greenwood?

I think that it is well worth a read

[seeder]

Seeder, did you scroll down and read all the thread and posts by others? including David with an interesting rebuttal to the proposed sentence by Greenwood?

I think that it is well worth a read

No I have been out for the afternoon, should I though? To be honest Roswell is my least favorite topic to discuss, I cant remember how many convo's on forums Ive had over the years. My view is, the military were involved because it was a military project that came down to earth from high atmosphere. The press, in their enthusiastic yet half or none researched manner ran a story on it being a ufo/saucer, much like all the press recently ran stories about a crashed ufo on the Baltic sea floor... its what they do, isnt it?

Headlines sell papers, what else was worthy news that week for Roswell? Not a lot I expect.

[zoser]

No I have been out for the afternoon, should I though? To be honest Roswell is my least favorite topic to discuss, I cant remember how many convo's on forums Ive had over the years. My view is, the military were involved because it was a military project that came down to earth from high atmosphere. The press, in their enthusiastic yet half or none researched manner ran a story on it being a ufo/saucer, much like all the press recently ran stories about a crashed ufo on the Baltic sea floor... its what they do, isnt it?

Headlines sell papers, what else was worthy news that week for Roswell? Not a lot I expect.

Why do you think the original press release told of a UFO?

Why do you think people still testify to seeing small non-humanoid bodies?

Why was the undertaker whose testimony is on record receive a request to make several unusually small coffins?

Why the threats made to locals in the area?

For goodness sake DYOR.

[media=]

[/media] Edited July 3, 2013 by zoser

[zoser]

The problem is that it's an interpretation of what the memo might have said. Those who believe the Roswell crash was an ET space craft will embrace the interpretation, those who don't believe it will reject the interpretation.

I don't think the word 'disc' on the memo can be interpreted any other way.

By all means please try.

This is it I'm afraid.

[quillius]

No I have been out for the afternoon, should I though? To be honest Roswell is my least favorite topic to discuss, I cant remember how many convo's on forums Ive had over the years. My view is, the military were involved because it was a military project that came down to earth from high atmosphere. The press, in their enthusiastic yet half or none researched manner ran a story on it being a ufo/saucer, much like all the press recently ran stories about a crashed ufo on the Baltic sea floor... its what they do, isnt it?

Headlines sell papers, what else was worthy news that week for Roswell? Not a lot I expect.

I would suggest you read it if you completely buy what Greenhouse has put forward. Allows for a more balanced perspective IMO.

As for the subject itself (i.e. Roswell)......its just way too big for me to get into properly, however I dont mind when its about something specific,, although it still always spirals.

anyhow its your call as to whether you read it or not, I assumed you would want to see a response to a post you made/link you highlighted.

[quillius]

I don't think the word 'disc' on the memo can be interpreted any other way.

By all means please try.

This is it I'm afraid.

I thought the word 'victims' stood out and wasnt contested by Greenhouse, he moved the conversation to line 5 and focused there.

[zoser]

I thought the word 'victims' stood out and wasnt contested by Greenhouse, he moved the conversation to line 5 and focused there.

I agree. More confirming evidence.

Case confirmed.

Am I surprised?

We knew it all along.

[seeder]

Last post then Im eating... I like posting a wall of very interesting text as I know zoser will be disadvantaged by not reading it, but we shall see.

quote:

"Problems with witness accounts"

Hundreds of people ("witnesses") were interviewed by the various researchers, but critics point out that only a few of these people claimed to have actually seen debris or aliens. Most "witnesses" were repeating the claims of others, and their testimony would be considered hearsay in an American court of law and therefore inadmissible as evidence.

Of the 90 people claimed to have been interviewed for The Roswell Incident, the testimony of only 25 appears in the book, and only seven of these people actually saw the debris. Of these, five handled the debris.[52] Pflock, in Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe (2001), makes a similar point about Randle and Schmitt's UFO Crash at Roswell.

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.[53] 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.[53]

As for the accounts from those who claimed to have seen aliens, critics identified problems ranging from the reliability of second-hand accounts, to credibility problems with witnesses making demonstrably false claims, or multiple, contradictory accounts, to dubious death-bed confessions or accounts from elderly and easily confused witnesses.

Pflock noted that 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.[57] Duran is mentioned in a brief footnote in The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell and never again, while the other three all have serious credibility problems.

A problem with all the accounts, charge critics, is they all came about a minimum of 31 years after the events in question, and in many cases were recounted more than 40 years after the fact. Not only are memories this old of dubious reliability, they were also subject to contamination from other accounts the interviewees may have been exposed to.

The shifting claims of Jesse Marcel, whose suspected that what he recovered in 1947 was "not of this world" sparked interest in the incident in the first place, cast serious doubt on the reliability of what he claimed to be true.

In The Roswell Incident, Marcel stated, "Actually, this material may have looked like tinfoil and balsa wood, but the resemblance ended there.

They took one picture of me on the floor holding up some of the less-interesting metallic debris. The stuff in that one photo was pieces of the actual stuff we found. It was not a staged photo."

Timothy Printy points out that the material Marcel positively identified as being part of what he recovered is material that skeptics and UFO advocates agree is debris from a balloon device.[7]

After that fact was pointed out to him, Marcel changed his story to say that that material was not what he recovered.[7] Skeptics like Robert Todd argued that Marcel had a history of embellishment and exaggeration, such as claiming to have been a pilot and having received five Air Medals for shooting down enemy planes, claims that were all found to be false, and skeptics feel that his evolving Roswell story was simply another instance of this tendency to fabricate.[59]

[zoser]

Last post then Im eating... I like posting a wall of very interesting text as I know zoser will be disadvantaged by not reading it, but we shall see.

quote:

"Problems with witness accounts"

Nothing surprising at all. Jesse Marcel when faced with disciplinary measures, loss of income and pension was in all probability bound to retract his story under USAF pressure.

What would you expect.

Many people were threatened with their lives over this case.

Of course I'm sure you know all this from your research.

What about the dozens of witnesses that didn't retract their story? Can you find these?

Another pointless post.

Edited July 3, 2013 by zoser

[seeder]

Nothing surprising at all. Jesse Marcel when faced with disciplinary measures, loss of income and pension was in all probability bound to retract his story under USAF pressure.

What would you expect.

Many people were threatened with their lives over this case.

Of course I'm sure you know all this from your research.

What about the dozens of witnesses that didn't retract their story? Can you find these?

Another pointless post.

There were not dozens of witnesses - as outlined above in the text you clearly didn't read, but do tell me - who was threatened with his/her life, oh great researcher?

[seeder]

Last post here as I have been over it so many times over the years:

quote:

Frank Kaufmann performed various duties at RAAF, and his accounts appeared in UFO Crash at Roswell (1991). When interviewed by Karl Pflock in 1993, he claimed to have been a part of a nine-member team, the only ones permitted to travel to the location of a crashed alien craft and its crew. The site was north of Roswell, though he elsewhere claimed the site was on the Foster ranch. Kaufmann said his team came to the site and discovered a crashed craft split open, with an alien thrown against the arroyo wall, another hanging from the craft, and two more inside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_accounts_of_the_Roswell_UFO_incident

and

This site closer to Roswell "turned out to be bogus, as it was based upon the testimony of a single, alleged eyewitness [Frank Kaufmann] who himself was later discovered to have been a purveyor of false information."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_incident

and

Most, if not all, of the "evidence" concerning the recovery of saucer wreckage and alien bodies comes from one person - the late Frank J. Kaufmann. His testimony provided the stories that spawned several books about the Roswell incident. Kaufmann passed away in 2001.

In 2002, three UFO researchers visited Kaufmann's widow, who allowed them access to his office and papers. In there the three found, finally, some real evidence.

Unfortunately, that evidence, in the form of documents, drove them to the conclusion that Kaufmann had forged documents and made up stories for over a decade. None of his testimony is now believable. This discovery was made after Karl Pflock's book was published.

Take out Kaufmann's phoney tales about the recovery of alien spaceships and bodies and the part he had in these operations and there is essentially nothing left of the alien story.

This has been a necessarily abbreviated summary. Nothing beats reading the books yourself. By the way, Pflock's book is interesting. He is a UFOlogist who has thoroughly investigated the Roswell business and concluded that it is a non-event. Nothing alien happened there. The whole myth of aliens and flying saucers is based on Frank Kaufmann's hoaxes plus misinterpretations of what did happen.

Karl Pflock's conclusion is simply that the debris found on the ranch was that of an NYU balloon train (Flight #4) launched on June 4, 1947. There was indeed a cover-up as described in story 1994b; it was to deflect attention from the work associated with Mogul. There were no spaceships and no aliens.

As a last note - keep in mind the low probability that someone (anyone) can really accurately recall many details of events that happened 30 to 40 years earlier.

You can read the report about Frank Kaufmann here. It's worth the read; the report shows images of some of the falsified documents. As a follow-up, read this exchange with Kevin Randle.

From: The Roswell Myth

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/UFOs/rosmyth.html

Now Im outta here...

[DONTEATUS]

Key words here "NOTHING" and " IM OUTTA HERE "

Now That's funny ! Im off to Cook me some aliens !ITs the Fourth afterall !

[DBunker]

BBQ to morrow, Donteatus?

You ned to post some pictures of the smoker on the UM PARTY THREAD.

[zoser]

Last post here as I have been over it so many times over the years:

quote:

Frank Kaufmann performed various duties at RAAF, and his accounts appeared in UFO Crash at Roswell (1991). When interviewed by Karl Pflock in 1993, he claimed to have been a part of a nine-member team, the only ones permitted to travel to the location of a crashed alien craft and its crew. The site was north of Roswell, though he elsewhere claimed the site was on the Foster ranch. Kaufmann said his team came to the site and discovered a crashed craft split open, with an alien thrown against the arroyo wall, another hanging from the craft, and two more inside.

http://en.wikipedia....ll_UFO_incident

and

This site closer to Roswell "turned out to be bogus, as it was based upon the testimony of a single, alleged eyewitness [Frank Kaufmann] who himself was later discovered to have been a purveyor of false information."

http://en.wikipedia....ll_UFO_incident

and

Most, if not all, of the "evidence" concerning the recovery of saucer wreckage and alien bodies comes from one person - the late Frank J. Kaufmann. His testimony provided the stories that spawned several books about the Roswell incident. Kaufmann passed away in 2001.

In 2002, three UFO researchers visited Kaufmann's widow, who allowed them access to his office and papers. In there the three found, finally, some real evidence.

Unfortunately, that evidence, in the form of documents, drove them to the conclusion that Kaufmann had forged documents and made up stories for over a decade. None of his testimony is now believable. This discovery was made after Karl Pflock's book was published.

Take out Kaufmann's phoney tales about the recovery of alien spaceships and bodies and the part he had in these

.............

Nothing there.

No witness testimonies in your post and there are plenty to choose from. Matt Brazil's relations, the undertaker, Marcel's family...........all have their tale to tell.

Why did a nurse who witnessed the autopsy disappear without a trace?

Instead you choose this oblique anecdote and make out it is important. It is the least important piece of the story I have ever come across.

Edited July 3, 2013 by zoser

[psyche101]

You people cannot be serious.

You do realise those claims were made on an analogue photograph right?

That means the claims are bogus. I have a felling Chrlz will have a photographic field day with this silly tosh.

[psyche101]

Why did a nurse who witnessed the autopsy disappear without a trace?

Because the undertaker made her up in a weak attempt to sound half believable. What does that have to do with the fake analysis claim?

You do realise there are no megalithic rock sites there don't you? Can't have been aliens can it without the base site made of rocks. The aliens lay unattended for long enough to create a dozen Puma Punkus before the military showed up, it is just logistically preposterous.

Still, quite a coprolite you have created thus far to start your next monument with. You should vitrify it.

[psyche101]

I don't think the word 'disc' on the memo can be interpreted any other way.

With regards to you, no, that would not happen if we time travelled you back and you saw what garbology this is for yourself.

I could probably interpret this exaggeration to say the world will end in 2014 by the hand of pink elephants and very angry badgers. The level of your credulous nature never reaches a ceiling does it.

I do not even believe the above incoherent markings were actually achieved from this. I see no reason to consider this rather wild claim as genuine at all.

Edited July 4, 2013 by psyche101