UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Slovenly “research” by the easily distracted (in ufology)

Kevin Randle called for suggestions recently in the ongoing attempt to decipher the so-called Ramey memo, seen in the Roswell newspaper photos.

I had hoped that some would pursue the matter seriously, including David Rudiak who has been beating that “dead horse” for years.

(I even provided a New Yorker piece replete with ideas for deciphering such things.)

But it seems that Mr. Rudiak and other Roswellians (those in the UFO community fascinated by Roswell to the virtual exclusion of anything else UFO-related) are again distracted by elements that do not pertain directly to the content of the memo: Who took the Ramey photos is the current backwash at Kevin blog.

This is true and has been for most of the period of flying saucer/UFO discourse and interest over the years: ufologists go from one UFO story to another like bees looking for nectar that will satiate their curiosity.

No one, except for Jacques Vallee and a few other notables, sticks with a matter for any period of time that might help resolve the enigma that haunts them (and the rest of us).

Mr. Rudiak spends inordinate amounts of time “elucidating” his Roswell hypotheses and collected data, followed by a few Roswell fanatics who love to bring forward, ad infinitum, ad eternum, ad nauseum, the Roswell information they’ve accumulated over the years.

They are desperate to show expertise in something, and Roswell if the pig they’re exploiting.

The Ramey memo has been set aside, or so it seems, as the minions, who started to make it a matter of concentration, have been dissuaded by a need to show-off their Roswell acumen rather than pursuing the decipherment seriously as a real researcher does when one has a problem to resolve.

I just received (from Daedalus Books) Einstein’s Genius Club: The True Story of a Group of Scientists Who Changed the World [by Burton Feldman, Arcade Publishing, NY, 2007/2011].

The book tells readers how real scientists and researchers attack problems that arouse their inquisitiveness.

The Ramey memo people don’t even come close.

And Mr. Rudiak should be ashamed of his laggardly approach to the matter and Kevin Randle with him, for offering Roswell asides that take Kevin’s followers away from the topic to worthless matters that are regurgitated over and over again at Kevin's blog.

Shame on the both of them and the commenters who are too stupid to see how easily they are led astray by a need to vent ego and UFO swill.

RR

26 Comments:

  • I agree, the train appears to have jumped off of the track. I can't be too hard on Kevin since most sites and forums with high volume comments tend to do just what is seen...thread creep.

    I am curious as to who is "Nitram Ang?" Nitram appears to be the self appointed gate keeper or referee for Kevin's site. Though he may well be sanction by Kevin to do so. Best Nitram quote: "This is an investigation not a debate..."

    Getting back to the topic. The problem with the Ramey Memo is that it's damn near impossible to decipher anything coherent. The memo appears to read what ever you want it to read. Some have made up their minds that it leads directly to the ET proof. How and why eludes me at the moment. Forgotten in all of the noise was Kevin's initial thoughts that we have to have some degree of context regardless of what few words can be deciphered.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, November 18, 2015  

  • @ Tim

    I believe we do have some degree of context on the memo. The words most rational people can read indicate the memo recants the discovery of balloon related material on the Foster Ranch, much like what the press was printing.

    Nitram ANG is a mystery person who refuses to divulge his true identity but claims he is working further investigation into the Roswell affair with the underlying premise that the thing that crashed was a time machine from Earth's future. He's the arm chair spokesperson for Kevin and critic of skeptics. Just a form of trolling in disguise IMO.

    @ Rich

    I don't believe it's ever been disclosed as to when exacy this memo investigation was renewed by Kevin and David. All we hear from Kevin are things like "it's taken more time than I thought" statements.

    But as we've stated before it was started "...sort of confidential like..." as Brazel would have said, so just what scientific method has or is being used is still a mystery other than what has been shared. Presumably the print article that Kevin says has been drafted outlines this in more detail, although as you say, it appears there's no real science behind the effort.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Thursday, November 19, 2015  

  • RR and Tim:

    You have to remember that this scrap of paper (as I call it) in Ramey's hand is the ONLY 'solid' evidence anyone can lay their hands on. Everything else in this story over the last 7 decades is either trash or tittle-tattle. Those 6 photos likewise provide the only 'semi-hard' evidence of anything at all. The Santilli film and the infamous slides have gone into the trash can, so these 6 pics is all there is left.

    Therefore the ET proponents HAVE to play this to the full and extract as much as is humanly possible, to 'prove' their thesis. Kevin is helping them to do this, although he probably has his doubts whether anything useful will ever be deciphered.

    My own view is that they are searching for a 3-legged biped.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, November 19, 2015  

  • Brian and Tim:

    My grief comes from the lack of concentration on the memo, while the Ramey/Marcel photographs have taken over the front burner.

    Rudiak has always been discursive and Kevin abets him.

    The Roswell effluvia at Kevin's blog, which is an accumulation of regurgitated matter for several years now, is disheartening.

    Kevin has the moxie to do something grand but seems ingratiated to gathering inane comments rather than material that is germane or substantive.

    You, Brian, along with CDA, and occasionally Lance Moody can't get the corruptive asides put in perspective; they are intrinsically articles of "faith" by the Roswellians, and lack all logical or scientific credibility.

    The conjectures put forth by most of Kevin's minions are just "pie i nteh sky" ramblings and Nitram Ang (or whatever his pseudonym is) should be banned from commenting. It's Martin somebody who's been around a while but is too sheepish to reveal his real name ,as that would allow a vetting of his past bromides and nonsense.

    I read Kevin's blog -- or used to -- to find insights that no one else has.

    That is no longer the case.

    Dementia of a Roswell kind has set in, and my friend CDA has also succumbed pretty much.

    I know CDA wishes to straighten out the thinking in the commentary, but that's an uphill battle as I've mentioned a few times here and elsewhere.

    The discipline of investigation and research is a no-go with the Ramey memo, which is a red herring anyway.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, November 19, 2015  

  • CDA:

    But you play into their hands....Kevin's and Rudiak's and that silly Jeanne woman.

    They are far afield of scientific inquiry or even logical curiosity.

    You know who Nitram is. Why not out him?

    He's an ass.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, November 19, 2015  

  • "You know who Nitram is. Why not out him?"

    Alas, I do not. So I cannot 'out' him.

    As you say, he seems to be Kevin's deputy (maybe even Kevin himself under an alias?), and has told me to keep silent unless I have something worthwhile to offer.

    For all I know he may have the gift of being able to travel backwards and forwards in time, according to circumstance.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, November 19, 2015  

  • Well, his "anonymity" discounts him as far as I'm concerned.

    And his fascist insistence for you to keep silent is offputting in the extreme.

    Why does Kevin allow him free rein?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, November 19, 2015  

  • Why does Kevin allow him free reign?

    Perhaps as CDA suggests it really is Kevin via alias with time machine junk as additional cover!

    Overall my take is that Kevin gives great latitude to fellow Roswellians but only marginally tolerates skeptics because if he didn't he would be seen as a completely biased investigator, which he is anyway when it comes to Roswell (maybe not other cases though).

    I've never heard the guy say once that there was even the slightest possibility the gadget which landed was prosaic.

    As for David, well he's just lost really...

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Thursday, November 19, 2015  

  • Nitram Ang... Nab Lator... Isaac Koi... All three insist on anonymity, and I'm sure at least one of them is fishy.

    By Blogger Daniel Transit, at Thursday, November 19, 2015  

  • I understand Isaac's nom de plume, Daniel.

    And he has established credible cachet.

    But Nitram and "Nab Lator"? Not so much.

    (Fishy? I haven't heard that one in years....my dad used to say it about people he thought iffy.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, November 19, 2015  

  • Fishy -

    "The meaning of 'there's something fishy' is something of doubtful character or of some shady deal where the motives are suspected. The term 'fishy' is thought to have arisen from the notion "as slippery as a fish" or as an allusion to meat with a "fishy" taste, an indication that the meat is bad. A simpler explanation is that old fish (not good to eat) smells fishy with bad odour caused by a chemical named trimethylamine which is released when fish begins to break down."

    Yes, I would say there's something fishy about Nitram ANG....

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Thursday, November 19, 2015  

  • Brian, so Nitram proposes that a "time machine" was the impetus for the Roswell myth? Based on that, Kevin's ET crowd could be classified as "geniuses" with a credible theory.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Thursday, November 19, 2015  

  • RR-

    I posted a comment on that very same blog post of Randle's, questioning another sloppy wild-ass claim posted therein by the inspiration for the 'Occulist's Razor', D. Rudiak:

    (expecting shenanigans I kept a copy)
    -------

    "DR wrote:

    "E.g., highly decorated 4-star general David Petreus, director of the freaking CIA for crying out loud, was forced to resign over a sex-scandal in 2011, carrying out an affair with a Lebanese-born woman."

    Actually, DR, his affair was with an ex-Army officer and writer, Paula Broadwell. The Lebanese-born woman was Jill Kelley who was a friendly social contact of Petreus. This caused Broadwell to become jealous and Broadwell's behavior led to the exposing of the scandal.

    Why do I bother correcting you?
    Simply this:

    If you are unable to get the facts straight about current national events, WHY should anyone consider your opinions on the Roswell historical event to have any value whatsoever?

    Please enlighten us, DR..."

    -----

    So anyway RR, my legitimate question pointing out the basic blind-to-the-facts 'research approach' of the pitiable Rudiak lived for only a very short time before Randle scrubbed both Rudiak's bloviating and my response...

    I was saddened by that, as I had been under the impression that Randle was a legitimate, but perhaps overly trusting, Roswell investigator.

    I was wrong of course.
    "The Roswell Dream Team" are all of the same bent...

    ...this is a disappoint to me, as I had previously trusted Randle's military C.V. based claim to "honorable" behavior.

    I guess I am just too trusting...

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Friday, November 20, 2015  

  • Tim:

    Nitram Ang has been remarkably silent. Have no fears; he is waiting to pounce again. Just be patient - he first has to return from the future to the present.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, November 20, 2015  

  • Rich: "I had hoped that some would pursue the matter seriously..."

    Hard to imagine anyone having an opinion worth taking seriously when all they have is a jpg to view. Neither Kevin nor David give evidence they know much about film or film photography. So, there is nothing much to discuss about the 'memo'. Looking at the previous generation scan jpg, I wouldn't bet my pension check on any reading given so far.

    Rich, why do you refer to Roswell as ufo related, as in "those in the UFO community fascinated by Roswell to the virtual exclusion of anything else UFO-related"? Or, do you mean Roswell isn't ufo-related? Or, the only ufo relation is that it attracts the UFO community?

    Perhaps Roswellians aren't so much interested in ufos as they are in those ufos that are congruent with their beliefs about Roswell. So, other ufo stories are ok if they support their views on Roswell, so they become "evidence" for Roswell.

    Until we have proof there was a cargo shipped from the RAAF to AMC, therefore possibly "foreign", there is no reason to believe there was any "incident". What about the witnesses? Every story of a flight to Wright is worthless until we know that there was a flight. Every story about debris with unique properties, are worthless until we know there was a flight to AMC. et frickin' cetera.

    That is the only proof that there was an incident about some thing that we are likely to uncover. Looking for proof of an alien spaceship and crew? That's like going to the prom handcuffed to a corpse. It's a handicap. And yah gotta lead.


    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, November 20, 2015  

  • Don:

    Roswell is UFO-related by its mythos not by any hard-core evidence, but you know that.

    That damn mention of a "disc" in Haut's release is the crux of the matter and makes it a UFO incident for many.

    The problem with Kevin's blog and commenters, with which you are familiar, is the insertion of every cockamamie possibility for everything, whether the memo, the chairs in the photographs, that alleged flight to Wright, et cetera.

    Kevin allows all ideas to air, unless there is meanness involved, or extraneous material that goes egregiously astray.

    The Roswell matter, via Kevin's blog, more than any other blog, has become so convoluted and tortured that it is meaningless or just insane.

    Something happened at Roswell. What that is may be open to query, real "investigational" query, but allowing morons to add their voices to the scrutiny doesn't make sense to me or to persons who'd like to see a serious, undistracted attempt to find out what the Ramey memo really says, or see less fulsome regurgitations of Roswell detritus (by Rudiak mostly).

    Phew.....I'm starting to drone on like Rudiak, myself. It's infectious apparently.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, November 20, 2015  

  • No you are certainly not "droning on like Rudiak". This very well informed man (yes I am serious) has an answer to everything you can put to him. Sometimes these answers go down to the minutest detail about who did what, who said what and even precise timings of events, yet I wonder how he would fare in a debate with serious scientists about Roswell. The simple answer is that serious scientists would never debate Roswell anyway!

    Pretty soon he would have to fall back on conspiracy theory (as does everyone who promotes Roswell as ET, if you think about it). There is no escape, as conspiracy theory is completely bound up with the whole Roswell affair.

    However much we may denounce DR, he is certainly a vast improvement on a now forgotten (?) soul, Tony Bragalia, who seems to have dropped out for good. He may be resurrected one day, so I better watch out what I say.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, November 21, 2015  

  • Yes, Rudiak is fecund when it comes to Roswell and other UFO episodes. One has to give him that, CDA.

    But he can't focus, although he has the ability as is evidenced at his web-site.

    He's all over the place, regurgitating UFO frass mixed with enlightening material.

    As for the missing chap you mention, the less about him the better.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, November 21, 2015  

  • Rich: "That damn mention of a "disc" in Haut's release is the crux of the matter and makes it a UFO incident for many."


    The "mention of the disk" occurs before the canonical press release. The earliest version is the RDR's noon announcement:

    12 noon? "...the field has come into possession of a flying saucer",

    2:26pm First AP. Roswell dateline: "The army air forces here today announced a flying disk had been found..."

    2:41pm UP telex: "THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICE REPORTS THAT IT GAINED POSSESSION OF THE "DIS:""

    In the AP wires, Haut is mentioned at 2:30, then at 2:55 where it was found, then at 3:09 the radio reporter who broke the story.

    What all this means is the canonical press release wasn't on the wires at 2:26.

    So, Haut's AP press release: "was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc", which is the first time the story distinguishes between the 'rumored' flying disc and what the press release says was found: "a disc"

    I've laid this out to demonstrate that the press release didn't start it. I think it was an attempt to stop it. It failed, because the "myth" was already taking shape. This chronology is set hard in cement. Everything that follows has to be timed according to it.

    Rather than an hystical, fearful, anxious public, as some want it, the public seems curious, amused, and then irritated because no one has caught one of the damn things and found out what they are. So, when the news comes out that the AAF has caught a flying saucer there is plenty of interest and now excitement.

    Then Ramey's radio broadcast and photo op: the army's disc is a rawin and balloon. Ramey wants people to believe the disc was a rawin. It wants people to consider that other flying saucers might be rawins as well. it is met with skepticism, thus it fails, as did the press release,

    So, the army (and the navy) decide to suppress the saucer stories. That succeeds, and the 47 Wave (not just Roswell) is forgotten (except for Arnold and maybe Rhodes, thanks to Ray Palmer).

    What should be noted about Roswell, is this is when the disks become unknown entities or objects in themselves. People and the press were disappointed. They did not find out what a flying saucer is.

    The "saucers" become real. Identifying a reported saucer means that it wasn't a saucer, but venus or whatever. The myth is born at this moment. Even Ramey says it: it wasn't a flying disc, it was only a rawin.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, November 21, 2015  

  • Don.

    I was referring to how later-than-1947 UFO buffs have come to see the Roswell "disc" as a flying saucer or UFO.

    Rudiak is one of those and Kevin too plus many other "believers" exacerbated, perhaps, by Friedman as CDA often proposes.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, November 21, 2015  

  • Rich: "I was referring to how later-than-1947 UFO buffs have come to see the Roswell "disc" as a flying saucer or UFO."

    Yes. I wrote about when the notion that afflicts them first appeared.

    "Rudiak is one of those and Kevin too plus many other "believers" exacerbated, perhaps, by Friedman as CDA often proposes."

    I can't argue CDA out of his obsession with Friedman. I recall I used the 'handcuffed to a corpse' analogy to a skeptic with the handle 'twitch'; Marcel was the corpse, for twitch, back then ('97). Friedman seems to be CDA's date. He doesn't appreciate how little Friedman knew about Roswell in the late '70s.

    Consider this: three guys get together to write a book. The pro is Berlitz and this is going to be a book in his genre (look at what he published prior to The Roswell Incident), so he knows how to prep it for publishers and editors and knows what will sell. He was a linguist and in army intelligence. He wrote "In Search of..." type books.

    Friedman does the 'intern' work, the scut work, interviews and whatever.

    But Bill Moore was what (besides co-authoring with Berlitz, The Philidelphia Experiment?

    Of these three, Friedman seems the least likely to be...aggressively persuasive. As you have often pointed out, Friedman is hardly photogenic, nor is he an enthralling presence as a speaker. Some people are just plain innocent of rhetoric.

    I'd recommend, instead, considering Moore's role in the Myth.

    David Rudiak has been civil, polite, and forthcoming in every encounter I've had with him, whether usenet, email, or blogs. I really can't say that about anyone else in the UFO Community.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, November 21, 2015  

  • There is an innate brilliance with Rudiak, that he undercuts with his OCD approach to Roswell.

    Unfortunately he's not in nor will he be in the pantheon of UFO notables.....few nowadays.

    The UFO field needs to be refreshed by the younger crowd; geezers can't do it, as the book mentioned in my post points out.

    I'd like to see Kimball, back in it. Redfern is holding down the UFO fort, but the older guys, me included, are offering nothing worthwhile.

    Kevin is still nimble but getting senile with his Roswell revivals. He's got to step it up, and refresh his brain and us with a new vision of the old or a new vision of the new.

    Aubeck is gristle for UFO lore but ties himself to someone like Shough, who is over the hill and no longer relevant.

    Ufology and the topic needs young blood and new thinking.

    The old ways and the old guys (me among them) should be put out to pasture as we're all just cluttering the topic with nostalgia and bad, corrupted thinking.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, November 21, 2015  

  • Don:

    We are not here to discuss Friedman, but I will point out to you the following:

    1. Long before he got into Roswell, Friedman was an ardent believer in ETH and had written numerous papers promoting such.
    2. Friedman admits to usually sending the witnesses he interviewed a set of these research papers.
    3. It was Friedman who 'broke the ice' by locating and interviewing Jesse Marcel, the primary Roswell witness, in 1978.
    4. Bill Moore & Karl Pflock have both admitted that Friedman uses a very persuasive interviewing technique to steer witness's beliefs towards ETH and towards the cover-up thesis.
    5. Friedman himself complained that he should have had a major acknowledgement in THE ROSWELL INCIDENT. Instead all he got was a brief mention with all the other people who helped with the book. He also complained that a 1988 reprint of that book was identical to the original edition, despite all the extra work he and Moore had done since then.

    I think you underestimate Friedman's involvement, not only in the late 1970s but thereafter. And don't forget that he always described himself as a nuclear physicist when giving lectures and on the title page of his books & papers. This was only done to impress.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, November 21, 2015  

  • Friedman will be gone soon. Let him have his moment in the sun, as he will be forgotten in a few years, except as a footnote in ufology, which itself will be a footnote in the category of Social Fringe movements.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, November 21, 2015  

  • CDA, do you know who interviewed Haut for The Roswell Incident? I don't. If anyone brought the Myth to Roswell, it was Haut.

    I recall a review in 1980 in the RDR of the book. The local reviewer said the book was about a saucer crash near Soccoro ("the Plains" I guess) and I don't recall Corona getting a mention. If that was the local understanding in 1980, then we need to determine who brought 'the Myth' to a crash near Roswell. That December, Haut hosted a meet and greet and a book signing for Moore at his gallery in December...sold 86 copies ordered for the occasion. I recall Moore was interviewed by the RDR.

    I was wrong writing your corpse is Friedman. As with all skeptics it is ET. I don't care about Friedman's ET any more than I care about Berlitz' Atlantis. You are stuck on the ET interpretation, handcuffed to it. Yes, yes. Friedman promoted the ETH. So what? What does that have to do with what I have written?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Saturday, November 21, 2015  

  • "I wonder how [DR] would fare in a debate with serious scientists about Roswell. The simple answer is that serious scientists would never debate Roswell anyway!"

    There's no ground for debate, Roswell only subsists in a conspiracy of minutiae.

    I've just told him the entire "UFO" myth is transparent, utterly deconstructed and merely the subject of social science; and the historical facts of Airship mania and the origin of the modern "flying saucer" myth with Palmer and Arnold's hoax should destroy any thought of there being a "UFO" reality of any kind to the rational.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, November 21, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home