The Ramey Memo: Best Roswell Evidence Ever Found

Also why do we call the pro-Govt story folks debunkers?

Pro - Govt story = Believers.

People debunking the official story = debunkers.

They turned it around so they could ridicule people.
Let's turn it back around to the way it really is!

People who disprove the Govt Official Story are the real debunkers and skeptics here.

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.

WARNING! The link associated with this reply takes you to a website where you will be given a choice of downloading a PDF file. DON'T FALL FOR IT. If you click on DOWNLOAD, your computer will be attacked by undesirable forces. There is no such reliable interview, it's b.s. But the attack on your computer is real. I'm reporting this member.

this is similar to reverse speech, when they post a translation of the song in sequence with the reverse speech, it makes sense. but when you hear it without a translation, you can't make out one word.

if you try to read the memo without the translation, you'll be lucky to make out the word "the"

Originally posted by bxbomber328

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.

You know, the problem with your reply is that reflects popular thinking by people who are too young and have no idea what was happening in 1947. People read the popular books starting in 1978, MANY years after the Roswell event, and they accept what the authors tell them. Authors who see that writing about fantasies and depending on unverified claims and interviewing old people who do not remember exactly the way things happened but now all of a sudden they're thrown into the spotlight will color their stories because if they narrate as things really happened will have said authors ignoring them for the more colorful "memories". And writing the books in such a way that the gullible falls for what is written and make the authors famous and they laugh all the way to the bank. Stanton Friedman has been guffawing since his first flawed book hit the bookstores. He's not interested in the truth, it doesn't sell.

And you're wrong. If you took Roswell to court and were on the side of the material as presented[/] you'd lose your case for the truth will almost always out.

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

Jesse Marcel was there and he said it wasn't a weather balloon and he was right, an ordinary weather balloon wouldn't make such a large debris field. But other than the fact that there was too much debris for a weather balloon, what Marcel describes is exactly what the Roswell report later admitted really crashed, it DID have enough material to make such a large debris field.

1984 Interview With Major Jesse Marcel

Marcel both confirms the government coverup story was a lie, and also confirms their later admission of what really crashed matches not only Marcel's eyewitness description, but also the newspaper article at the time stating what was found (which also described too much wreckage for an ordinary weather balloon). In fact there are numerous eyewitnesses who basically describe a debris field of foil, sticks, tape, and rubber balloon pieces, they were there even if I wasn't so I don't see why you'd make such a big deal out of someone not being there.

Witnesses

Plenty of people saw the debris, and they all describe balloon wreckage like foil, sticks, and tape, just like the newspaper article.

Originally posted by GeechQuestInfo
Although it clearly says victims, that does not mean "aliens". I would suspect that if it were actual extraterrestrials that crashed they would not look at them and ascribe a human characteristic, such as victim.

This leads me to believe that there were human occupants in whatever crashed.........

OK, I haven't decided personally about Roswell, though I lean toward a cover-up of some sort, but I have to at least call out this argument. A "victim" is a universal term for either human or creature in an unfortunate circumstance. Those who write reports in the various departments of the government are going to be meticulous and as generic as possible....especially if dealing with an unusual situation. "Victim" would seem to fill in the blank when confronted with even an unknown entity involved.

Originally posted by Destroyer2012
Why isn't this in the news today as proof of aliens?

Simply because it's not proof of aliens. It's only proof of the power of gullibility and the shameful state of the human mind.

Originally posted by The Shrike
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]

So in your first paragraph regarding Marcel you say he was after the money/notoriety. OK, what money? And gaining notoriety by being regarded as crazy is something someone actively seeks?

2nd paragraph...Wikipedia?? Really, you got your info from Wikipedia?

Bessie Brazels statement sounds odd. Why would you say the foil/rubber could not be torn like ordinary foil? If of rubber even I would assume not, yet all the hooha over the fact the recovered material COULD not be torn even though it was as thin as the foil we know, makes her statement seem to agree that there was a foil looking material ( as described by many witnesses) but it was rubber backed so could not easily be torn. Convenient.

Cavitts testimony is most likely that of a ' good employee'.....doing and saying what he is told to do and say. Along with other scardey cats.

Other witnesses to the debris saw a wrecked weather balloon, just as planned. Especially for the reporter to photograph and to report on. And this after it was verified BY Military people that a disk had been found, then changed to a weather balloon. Its laughable!

I think for every one witness saying it was a weather balloon there are two who will say it was not.

IMHO anyways.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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:
(snip)

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

All the BS happened decades later.

Exactly! Aided and abetted by one Canadian author who is still billing himself as a Nuclear Physicist but as has been said hasn't been one for over 40 years! He started the ball, and the feuds, rolling and, personally, for his b.s. he is the one man in UFOlogy that I really hate, and I definitely do not wish him a Happy New Year and would love to read his obituary, soon!

Originally posted by bluemooone2
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.

Yes, he nails it to the wall for me too, he was right when he said it wasn't a weather balloon, and what he describes is wreckage from a much larger balloon, so he corroborates the 1995 government disclosure it was actually Mogul.

As I previously noted the use of the word "disc" was started by the rancher, it was described as a 6 sided object like a radar target attached to a balloon, in the FBI memo.

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

 

You are sooo wrong! First, I am a debunker when debunking is called for. I am a researcher. And you are wrong in stating that the evidence for a crashed UFO, whether near Roswell or anywhere on planet earth, far outweighs the evidence against it just shows that you ought to do some serious research to see if you can turn up any evidence to support your views. It doesn't take any effort to debunk it, it's been done magnificently by others, but their work is ignored by the gullibles.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
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.

Yeah, I criticize those who accept aliens as real without a shred of evidence. Hearsay is not evidence and when it comes to aliens all you have is hearsay. Prove me wrong.

I didn't say anything about the gov't story being legit or not, I don't assume. You either provide evidence to support your POV or if you can't then you're not operating on all cylinders.

The truth about Roswell is its evidence.

I wasn't there but neither were you. And I don't accept hearsay but it seems you do. It's too fantastic to think and accept that a UFO crashed and the world was not changed instantly. The world hasn't been changed. The human mind has.

I don't believe. Another faulty assumption from you.

You don't have common sense. A person who uses common sense would sound different. A person who uses common sense would want to see the evidence, not accept hearsay. You are undecided because you'd rather accept fantasy, which automatically is devoid of evidence, than using your so-called common sense. You don't question, I do.

Roswell UFO crash is rumor and speculation.

What do you get out of debunking it? It seems like a tough task to take on, when most are believer's. I wouldn't want the burden of taking on all these ATS members, lol.

Come to think of it, how does a baloon crash? It seems to me there wouldn't be alot of debris, and it wouldn't be talked about. I just can't wrap my mind how a baloon would crash -- it seems like it was gracefully fall, and land gently, lol.


Also, how did you learn the truth, that everyone is lying about Rosewell, including people who were actually there? What first turned you on to this? Thanks.

Originally posted by The Shrike

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

 

You are sooo wrong! First, I am a debunker when debunking is called for. I am a researcher. And you are wrong in stating that the evidence for a crashed UFO, whether near Roswell or anywhere on planet earth, far outweighs the evidence against it just shows that you ought to do some serious research to see if you can turn up any evidence to support your views. It doesn't take any effort to debunk it, it's been done magnificently by others, but their work is ignored by the gullibles.

Originally posted by The ShrikeYou are sooo wrong! First, I am a debunker when debunking is called for. I am a researcher. And you are wrong in stating that the evidence for a crashed UFO, whether near Roswell or anywhere on planet earth, far outweighs the evidence against it just shows that you ought to do some serious research to see if you can turn up any evidence to support your views. It doesn't take any effort to debunk it, it's been done magnificently by others, but their work is ignored by the gullibles.

If you mean the 1995 USAF report on Roswell, available here in its' entirety, I frankly find it hard to believe, particularly the statement and interview with Sheridan Cavitt, who was with Marcel and brought the debris back to the base.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
What do you get out of debunking it? It seems like a tough task to take on, when most are believer's. I wouldn't want the burden of taking on all these ATS members, lol.

Come to think of it, how does a baloon crash? It seems to me there wouldn't be alot of debris, and it wouldn't be talked about. I just can't wrap my mind how a baloon would crash -- it seems like it was gracefully fall, and land gently, lol.


Also, how did you learn the truth, that everyone is lying about Rosewell, including people who were actually there? What first turned you on to this? Thanks.

Good, non-threatening questions. Debunking, when properly done, brings a sense of satisfaction at correcting a wrong. It can be a lot of fun because you embark on, mostly, research on a subject you don't know about but it catches your attention. You then check to see if it is as claimed. Your research reveals that the status is not quo so you then bring your research which you hope will be checked by others to verify or disprove your findings. When others verify your research, a wrong has been righted and others can benefit from your efforts. I've done it here a few times.

Crash, in relating to Roswell was the wrong term. Nothing crashed. But some people gave some information to other people and that information was changed creatively for effect. The balloon train didn't crash. The reported storm may have affected the balloons possibly deflating one so that the train was not able to maintain its height and as it fell the wind dragged it on the ground and it came apart. The wind blew the debris around. You have to be aware that the balloon train was composed of some material that was experimental to allow the components to withstand whatever forces nature threw at it. Materials that are commonplace now but new in 1947 and not everyone had come in contact with them to develp knowledge about them.

I accept the non-UFO crash because it doesn't violate common sense, logic, and reason. I don't accept that UFOs crash willy-nilly all over the planet. Just one real UFO crash and the subsequent finding of the debris and possibly beings would change the world instantly. You just don't find crashed UFOs everyday and the world doesn't find out about it. It would be instant news. When you research Roswell you come up against 2 camps, the UFO crash supporters and the camp that has done the necessary research to disclose that what "crashed" was a mundane but secret at the time military/civilian project headed by Professor Charles B. Moore. Research him to find out more about what really came down near Roswell.

To answer your question about what turned me on to this, in 1957 I was stationed in Sidi Slimane Air Force Base and I met a Captain who turned me on to UFOs with George Adamski's first book and commented that I wasn't going to find in the book or books of that time an event that happened near Roswell, New Mexico which he says was forgotten because the newspapers went bananas with something that was not reported as properly as it should have been but if it had we might have been propelled into a confrontation with the Russians and he would have been involved. To me Roswell never sounded as reported and some investigators such as Robert Todd who helped make public the truth about Roswell. Only believers in fantasy accept the popular reports and very few look behind the scenes.

This is so goddamn old, and people who have been registered on this site for nearly a decade are just now finding out about it?

Why is this even being posted, much less discussed? This video is from what, 2003?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by bluemooone2
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.

Yes, he nails it to the wall for me too, he was right when he said it wasn't a weather balloon, and what he describes is wreckage from a much larger balloon, so he corroborates the 1995 government disclosure it was actually Mogul.

As I previously noted the use of the word "disc" was started by the rancher, it was described as a 6 sided object like a radar target attached to a balloon, in the FBI memo.

edit on 26-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo

Just out of curiosity, what's your reason for why the army would issue a press release saying they had a captured disc if Marcel knew it was a balloon? He didn't issue the press release, it was issued by order of the base commander.

And has anyone ever entertained the idea that an experimental balloon did indeed crash during the storm near Roswell but so did a flying disc during the same storm? After all the whole place was a testing ground as stated?

It's possible both events happened around the same date, therefore the government may not be lying about the crashed balloon, but the testimony about an alien craft and bodies may be true also. The balloon story would be a fantastic convenience for the army.

Edit to add: I do agree that the evidence about this memo to totally unreliable. Its too speculative and down to individual interpretation.

reply to post by The Shrike


pseudo debunking is what it's called. And you're not much different than some conspiracy theorists. After your over inflated ego finally dissipates after thinking you are in the know, you'll search out a new thread to get high from. But in reality, you haven't really debunked anything and I highly doubt you are the chosen one to do it, especially this topic considering its about 40 years older than you.

BTW, I didn't sense that Roswell witness had the slightest bit of dementia as you like to put it, but then again, I'm not a doctor, and neither are you. So pat yourself on the back for using subjective reasoning to help you in your stellar debating skills. Straw man and ad hominem are your strong points.

reply to post by FlySolo


The interesting thing about the Shrike's comments here ( and I mean no disrespect to you here Shrike) is that he is falling in to the trap of believing the testimony of people who support his conclusion and rejecting the testimony of those who don't.

This is known as specious reasoning in academic circles.

reply to post by Monts


One day soon we will wake up to news that the US and other countries have came out and said that there are aliens flying in our atmosphere.