Following the October presentation, Jaimie Maussan’s experts chose to post their analysis on the web. That web page lasted less than a week before it was made inaccessible to the general public. One can not say why but it could be that they had received negative feedback regarding their analysis.
As always, they continue to ignore the rules of perspective and insist the body in the Ray’s photograph is 120 cm long. This is based on the measurements they made on the woman in the background, who is behind the body a significant distance. There is no doubt that she is much further away because she is not in focus, which means she is outside the depth of field. I discussed this in SUNlite 7-4. So far, the Maussan experts have failed to address this problem.
Either Maussan’s experts are hoping nobody will notice their errors or they are being paid to say these things. Failure to address obvious mistakes in their analysis indicates they are not interested in science and are part of a hoax. Their failure is embarrassing for them professionally. Maybe they hope that nobody will notice.
Kevin Randle recently wrote about “deathbed confessions” that appear in many of Carey and Schmitt’s writings. It is amazing that some of the stuff they write is blindly accepted by other crashologists. Personally, I think just about anything Carey and Schmitt write should not be trusted without being verified. The recent Roswell slides debacle demonstrated how unreliable both of these men are.
Of course, the “deathbed confession” is not just reserved for people like Schmitt and Carey. There have been other ridiculous at- tempts at promoting “deathbed confessions” as truth. Here are a two recent examples that were less than compelling.
￼ Ramey DOCUMENT update
Last issue, I mentioned that David Rudiak, Kevin Randle, and Martin Dreyer had produced new scans of the infamous “Ramey memo” photograph taken in Fort Worth. Lance Moody shared these scans with several members of the Roswell Slides Research Group, which decided to see if they could make heads or tails out of it. Despite employing various versions of software and other methodologies, nobody really could agree on much about what the text states. Even though nobody in our group could clearly read it, I decided to share some of my observations regarding the “memo” with readers of SUNlite.
The Roswell scenario
What we are told by Roswell crashologists is that this is a top secret message sent by General Ramey to higher headquarters de- scribing the recovery operations underway at Roswell and efforts to deceive the press. The most detailed analysis comes from David Rudiak, who has spent over a decade examining and attempting to read the text. He has provided us with his interpretation and asserts that it is correct.1
According to Rudiak, this is a highly classified message from General Ramey to General Vandenberg. His interpretation of the memo describes a recovery operation, the delivery of “victims” from some sort of craft to some unknown location, and the deception cam- paign launched to fool the press. This is Rudiak’s claim based on years of looking at the images but is his reading accurate?
Was General Ramey a “drooling idiot”?
The argument that this is a top secret message that was so highly classified that very few people were ever aware of its contents makes some serious assumptions about General Ramey and Colonel Dubose. Both men were not young first Lieutenants and were knowledgeable about securing classified information. Despite this experience, we are told that they managed to ignore security regulations when the photographs were taken. Were they, to quote a prominent crashologist, “drooling idiots”? If one is going to categorically state that balloon and radar reflector materials could NEVER be misidentified by a Colonel and a Major (even though there is evidence that such misidentifications were being made in 1947) then one has to assume that it is just as, if not more, unlikely for a General to wave a highly classified document in front of a camera. I am not stating it is impossible for Ramey to expose classified material to the press. I am just stating that, based on the assumed contents of the message, it is extremely unlikely that he would be so careless.
Who sent what?
The claim made by Rudiak, and the other crashologist, that this is a message from General Ramey to higher headquarters needs to be critically examined. In Rudiak’s case, the message is specifically to General Vandenberg, the head of the USAAF. However, his interpretation makes no sense if that was the case.
Rudiak states that Ramey tells Vandenberg that he (Vandenberg) “forwarded” the “victims of the wreck”. How could Vandenberg, who is in Washington D.C., forward the debris from Roswell? This interpretation indicates that Vandenberg already knew about the event and had Roswell send the debris to Fort Worth. However, this is not what happened according to all of the witnesses associat- ed with the case. General Dubose told researchers that he called Roswell and told them to send the wreckage to Fort Worth. Others have suggested that Blanchard decided on his own to send the debris to Fort Worth.
Another problem with the message being from Ramey is that, if this is accurate, there would be no reason for Ramey to be holding it. If he were reviewing a message to be transmitted, he would not have been holding the final printout. Instead, he would have held a form/draft that was typed so he could review it. These are two examples of these kinds of forms:
The one on the left is from a field manual on signal communications from 19502. The middle document shows the form in use. Several of these can be found in the Blue Book files3. The one on the right is a draft message following the D-Day landings in 19444. Both demonstrate there was a form that would be used to create a message prior to its transmittal. Had Ramey being reviewing a message prior to transmittal, he would have had that form in his hand. Once the message was transmitted, there would have been no need for him to see a printed copy of the message right away.
A more likely scenario is that he held in his hand a message that was sent to him, 8th Air Force, or to multiple commands. In that instance, he would have been given the message so he could be aware of recent information that he needed to know for his press conference.
Most skeptics have felt there is no way to clearly read the document and most of the solutions are little more than a “best guess”
where one’s bias can affect what one reads. A few years ago, Barry Greenwood, in UHR #13 , interpreted one line to read ““....
WARREN HAUGHT, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER AT ROSWELL, SAID.” That was something very different and, according to Green- wood, this meant that it was a news teletype. Several people pointed out that many of the words that everyone agrees upon never appear in any news paper reports, which eliminates this as a news telex. This is true but Greenwood’s reading of the line needs a lot more consideration than a simply dismissal based on these grounds. The words do appear to match what can be seen in the photograph. I can’t say if this is an accurate analysis or not but it seems like a better reading than some of the other interpretations. My tentative agreement with Greenwood on the words may be influenced by my bias that this probably was some sort of document with a report recounting some of the information that was already circulating in the media.
Does this look like a 1947 message?
The one thing that has me extremely skeptical of Rudiak’s interpretation is his message format. It does not appear to match any-
thing that can be found in messages from the era. On the following page, I have five messages from the era showing how
they appeared in various types of reports (two of which were highly classified at the time). All followed similar formats, which are unlike the interpretations of the header format suggested by Rudiak, where General Vandenberg was identified as the recipient. To top it off, the wording found in the various interpretations look nothing like what is seen in these messages.
The only problem with this comparison is that they are not messages transmitted by the 8th Air Force in 1947. One has to compare apples to apples. That being said, there is no reason to believe that the Fort Worth message traffic was any different than what we see in these examples.
One other item I noticed in the “Ramey document” is the unusual header at the top11:
I have yet to see any “header” like this in any military document. Identifying this logo might hold the key to identifying what type of document the “Ramey memo” actually is.
Studies and outside agencies
Over a decade ago, Kevin Randle and James Houran published a study about the Ramey memo where they concluded that
people would not be able to read the word “victims” unless they were prompted to do so . David Rudiak felt the subjects,
who were allowed to view the image, were not given enough context or information about the memo, to give it a proper reading/ interpretation13. He felt the wording was clear enough to him and to his fellow crashologists. To prove this, he came up with what he calls “consensus” readings14. However, this “consensus” readings were among many pro-UFO crash authors who have been pub- lishing and sharing their readings with each other for years. They are not independent and most are influenced by a shared belief in a crashed spaceship. It is not a surprise that they are going to agree on certain key phrases and the document’s meaning.
One of the items that was mentioned in the Houran/Randle study was that they wanted to have the memo read by several indepen- dent agencies to see if they came up with the same results. Houran was able to convince the Fund for UFO Research to finance such an effort. The results of this study were not widely disseminated but Kevin Randle mentioned it in his e-book, Roswell Revisited:
Houran details the methods used to review the memo by the laboratories and then offers the conclusions of that analysis. Surprisingly, those results mirror those obtained by the Air Force during their study in the 1990s. In other words, the experts consulted by Houran, after running their various tests, scans, and analysis, concluded that nothing could be read with any degree of certainty in the Ramey Memo. Houran wrote to me, “The labs felt that no words could be read with any accuracy...However, they did say that improved methodologies might yield some legible words.”
So, like the Air Force before them, these labs didn’t want to make a judgment call on what they considered a stimuli too vague to define. They suggested that there was a lower limit to how much resolution there could be because the “noise” from the grains of silver in the emulsion could never be completely eliminated and that even the best labs might never be able to improve the quality of the signal. No, they didn’t rule that out completely, but the fact remains that the object of the photograph was not the paper in Ramey’s hand, and that the paper was turned and twisted and those distortions just might be too much of overcome.
What it seems to boil down to is that there is no real consensus on what the message says no matter how much argument there is about it. And while it can be argued that the message held by Ramey might be about the Roswell case, there really is no way to know that for certain because the stimuli is too vague to be read with any degree of certainty.15
Thanks to Kevin Randle, I was able to obtain a full copy of the report and the comments by the various analysts mirror much of what has been stated about reading the text all along:
The problem from an image processing point of view is VERY challenging and interesting since the images you gave us are both blurred and corrupted with film grain noise. 16
The most important difficulty which explains that we do not obtain better results is the presence of an important noise, essentially the noise of the photographic film. The spatial frequencies of this noise are of the same order as those of the letters, so that it is very difficult to extract a pertinent information. 17
The letters in the image are probably too near to the resolution limit of the camera setting and too much information has been lost.18
The most interesting comment in the report came from Dr. Bruce Maccabee:
The fact that the image size of even the largest letters is not great compared to the grain size of the film is the reason that I have stayed out of this. I suspect that a sizable part of the “restored information” we have read about in the past (based on claims about being able to read the document to get that information) is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, there is so much noise what one claims to see is like seeing “something” in a Rorschach ink blot test. The individual letters are broken up, sometimes severely broken, by the absence of film grains. This makes any attempt at a restoration very difficult or perhaps even impossible, in my humble opinion.19
All these comments mirror what the USAF stated in the 1994 report on Roswell. They stated that they had digitized an original print obtained from the University of Texas-Arlington hoping to discover additional information about the Roswell event:
In an attempt to read this text to determine if it could shed any further light on locating documents relating to this matter, the photo was sent to a national-level organization for digitizing and subsequent photo interpretation and analysis. This organization was also asked to scrutinize the digitized photos for any indication of the flowered tape (or “hieroglyphics,” depending on the point of view) that were reputed to be visible to some of the persons who observed the wreckage prior to its getting to Fort Worth. This organization reported on July 20, 1994, that even after digitizing, the photos were of insufficient quality to visualize either of the details sought for analysis.20
David Rudiak, among others, has implied that the USAF either lied about the analysis or were incompetent in performing it. Over a decade later, independent agencies, who probably had better equipment/software than those available in 1994, were agreeing with the USAF’s conclusions. The implication that something sinister transpired during the analysis appears to be debunked based on this information.
Ihave tried a number of programs in order to make the text more clear. I tried NEAT image, Photoshop, Registax (which has a wave- let feature that I thought might help), and Smart deblur. All were unsuccessful in any improvement in reading the letters in the memo.
My attempts to read the lines in the image did not produce anything I am overly confident in publishing but I think there are some possibilities that are not found in the popular readings. As stated previously, I think that it is possible that Greenwood’s reading of the one line has some merit. Other lines can also have different interpretations.
The most important line for the Crashologists is the line “Victims of the wreck”. However, one could also read this as “Finding”, “Viewing”, or “Remains” among other possibilities. While the word “victims” is a possible match, the word “wreck” seems to be less convincing. It does look like five letters but there is a space between the second and third letters indicating that part of the letter or a complete letter is missing.21
Of course, we do not even know if the word is even spelled correctly. For instance, the word might be OBJECT but misspelled OBJET. It also might be military jargon or a designation like RAWIN, ML307, or 509TH! We don’t know for sure. These possibilities need to be considered and not dismissed in favor of the “consensus” of a group already convinced the message involves discussion of a crashed alien spaceship.
After the words “Victims of the wreck” is the subsequent phrase “you forwarded”. To me, the word appears to be “you commanded” or “was commanded”. 22
This makes more sense if this is a message sent to Ramey and not from him. This might read, “The remains of the wreck you com- manded to the........at Fort Worth, Tex.”
Another part of the message that has me wondering is the section that is read, “Meaning of story”. I see it differently. The “M” in meaning could be an “H” . This means the word might be “hearing” , which changes the whole context of the sentence. For instance, if one was “hearing of story”, then it is was indicative of a second hand report and not some conspiratorial note that there was a “meaning”of the story. Of course, I also wonder if the“of story”interpretation is even correct. The space between the “of” group and “story” group appears blurred or smudged to the point
that a letter could be there and obscured by damage to the negative (see arrow).23 If this is accurate then, instead of two words, it might be one complete word. This would change the entire interpretation.
I don’t’ consider any of my observations very accurate because I feel my personal bias is involved. That is the problem with the Ra- mey document. The reader is going to see what they want to see and there appears to be no way to work around it.
In an effort to replicate the Ramey memo, I took several photographs using a wide angle lens from distances ranging from six to twelve feet using an 18 mega-pixel Canon digital SLR. This was not an effort to duplicate the resolution of the 4X5 negative but an effort to find at what distance the camera’s resolution appeared to match that seen in the “Ramey Memo”. I discovered that the words become clear enough to read around ten feet. At 11 and a half feet, the resolution was similar to what we see in the Fort Worth photographs.
I typed the document using a teletype font and phrases from various documents involving Roswell and other events that transpired with a few years of the Roswell crash. I also created a section based on the Roswell UFO crash story. To introduce even further am- biguity, I used a printer with a low toner cartridge. It introduced fading to some of the letters (although they could clearly be read when held by hand).
The image on the following page is that document. It is comparable to the resolution of the Ramey document. While I could not read all of the words, I could read several phrases based on what I knew about what was in the document. Beyond the key phrases, the rest of the document is difficult to be read.. In some cases, the letters appeared to blur together. This indicated to me that it was
almost impossible to accurately read any document when the words are this small and lost in the noise of the image.
The Gordian knot
There really can be no conclusions at this point unless somebody can resolve the letters with certainty. Where some see a secret message from Ramey to higher headquarters, others are going to see something that appears more mundane. The new scans do not appear to clarify the issue and I have yet to see anybody produce improved text resolution from them. Until that can be done, the “Ramey Memo” will remain an enigma, which nobody will be able to solve.
Quelle: SUNlite 1/2016