UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 12

Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 18:30:31 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 08:48:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Rudiak


>From: Neil Morris <neil.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:41:15 +0100
>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:18:41 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>I believe that Jessie was given large prints from the hi-rez
>>scans, but you'll find disagreement on how "hi-rez" those scans
>>were, after being commissioned by Stanton Friedman (if I recall
>>correctly). Stanton has made those scans available on CD for
>>anyone who wants to review them, but I know that some have felt
>>that the scanning process could have been handled differently
>>and so the debate over quality continues. Neil, correct me if
>>my memory is in error, but I thought that your "enhancements"
>>of the images brought out what you've identified as "Symbols",
>>and

>The events of that afternoon in Fort Worth are far more complex
>than it first seems. We now know from our lens analysis that
>Bond only took 4 of the 7 known photographs,

Not so. This is another of Andrew Lavoie's faulty analyses. He
compared the angles between the rug stripes in the Ramey/Dubose
photos and one of the Ramey alone photos with one of the Marcel
photos (Marcel looking right). Because the stripe angle
separation between the Ramey et al photos were similar whereas
the Marcel photo stripes were more splayed out, he concluded
that two different cameras with two different focal lengths were
used.

What's wrong with this conclusion? It doesn't take simple
perspective into account. Lavoie would only be right if _all_
the photos were taken at the same height. But they weren't. The
stripe angles will change with the height of the camera above
the rug even if one camera is used. It is very obvious just by
eyeballing the photos that the Marcel photo was taken with the
cameraman kneeling down at Marcel's level (e.g., the top of the
radiator and the chair seats are just barely visible) while all
the Ramey photos used were taken with the cameraman standing up
(much more of the radiator top and the chair seats are exposed.

The higher the camera (Ramey photos), the less skewed the
stripes will be. The lower the camera, the more skewed they are.
End of story. One camera could have taken all the photos.

There could conceivably be two cameras at work here, but a
simplistic and erroneous analysis like the one LaVoie used won't
give us the definitive answer claimed by Lavoie and other
members of the RPIT (Roswell Photointerpretation) group.

>and that these
>photographs we can time, due to the sun/shadow angle seen
>through Ramey's office window to _3.15pm_ local
>time(+-15mins).

This is more of Lavoie's faulty analysis . As Kevin Randle tried
to point out, we don't know the orientation of the room (and
thus can't know for sure the position of the sun). Good point.
Lavoie merely assumed that the sun was coming directly from the
left, or west, i.e., assuming the walls of the room was laid out
east/west and north/south.

One indication that this probably isn't right is the fact,
evident from aerial photographs, that most of the streets and
building at the Fort Worth base are laid out diagonally, i.e.,
at 45 degrees to the usual north/south/east/west grid. Was this
also true of Ramey's office? I don't know, but it easily could
have been.

A more definite indication is the fact that the bottom edge of
the shadow used by LaVoie is obviously _slanted_ upward to the
right. In other words, the sun instead of being directly to the
left, was instead to the left and _behind_. At 3:15 p.m. CST,
the sun was at azimuth 264 deg., or almost due west (270 deg.)

Lavoie also assumes the shadow was being cast by the bumper of a
car and even claims to know the exact make and year ( 1941
Buick).  Considering that all we can see of the outside is
through a small slit in Ramey's curtain, this is truly amazing.
In fact, what is really casting the shadow is entirely open to
conjecture, as is the time of day. When I model something like
an old 1940s Buick in a 3-D ray-tracer where I can simulate
various angles of the sun at different times of day (and
assuming different orientations of the car relative to the sun),
I can't get anything like the shadow. E.g., assuming, as LaVoie
did, that the sun is directly to the left at around 3:15 p.m.,
the shadow from the hood and fender of the "Buick" totally
obscures the bumper shadow. In other words, LaVoie's sundial
"Buick" is more like a "bumper" floating in the air with no car
behind it.

My best guess is that the shadow-caster may be something simple
like a concrete curb instead of a car bumper. The recessed
"license plate holder" might instead be a drain in the curb.
Whatever it is, it is being strongly illuminated by the sun on
the top, which wouldn't be possible for a car bumper (rest of
car is in the way).

When I instead model a simple curb and assume Ramey's office is
oriented diagonally (i.e. rotated about 45 degrees to a typical
N/S/E/W grid), I get a time closer to two hours later, i.e.,
around 5:15 p.m. CST. However given all the uncertainties, I
don't have a lot of faith in that shadow time either.

At least a later time is consistent with everything else. The
story was already out, which is why J. Bond Johnson was
dispatched to cover it to begin with. AP was apparently first to
break the story on the newswire at 3:26 CST:

AP chronology: http://roswellproof.com/AP_Chronology.html

Comparing newspaper stories, Ramey began to change the story to
weather balloon about an hour later (NY Times, San Francisco
Examiner, Chicago Tribune). Acting AAF chief staff Vandenberg
was also reported dropping into the AAF public relations office
at the Pentagon to handle the crisis. Vandenberg's log again
indicates he was out of his office for an hour again starting
about hour after the initial AP newswire (from about 4:15 to
5:15 CST). Ramey was called in Fort Worth from the Pentagon PR
office. According to the Washington Post, Ramey gave a
description, but then said he hadn't seen it yet! How could Bond
Johnson have already photographed Ramey with the debris, yet
Ramey hadn't seen it yet over an hour later?

Johnson's orginal story was also that he got sent only because
he happened to come in at the shift change, around 5:00 p.m.,
and there was nobody else available. In fact, the first mention
of Ramey's involvement by AP was a bulletin at 4:53 p.m. (saying
Ramey _had_ shipped the "disc" to Wright Field). That at least
is in accordance with Johnson's earlier accounts before he began
altering his story.

Another indication that this early photo time is all hooey comes
from Robert Shirkey, the assistant operations officer at
Roswell, who recalled Marcel's B-29 arriving and being loaded
just after he got back from lunch. Shirkey thought it took off
at around 2:00 p.m. Roswell time or 3:00 in Fort Worth. Flight
time from Roswell to Fort Worth would be 1-1/2 to 2 hours (for
comparison, a log of a B-29 flight the next day carrying the
mysterious crate to Fort Worth had a flight time of 1 hour 55
minutes). Then Marcel had to get from the B-29 to Ramey's
office. (Robert Porter on the plane with Marcel said a guard was
posted before they were allowed to leave.) Ramey wasn't in his
office at first, said Marcel. When Ramey returned he showed
Ramey some of the samples (laying them out on Ramey's desk, not
the floor), then he and Ramey went to the map room before
returning to Ramey's office. That's when the balloon switch
occurred. The photos were taken afterwards. Thus we are talking
probably around 2-1/2 hours to the photo session from Marcel's
departure time from Roswell. If Shirkey was right about the
time, the photos would likely have been taken around 5:30. Even
if we push back Shirkey's time an hour, it would have been 4:30,
or at least at hour after Johnson's imaginary pre-Roswell story
photo shoot.

And remember, it was also around this time (i.e., around 4:30),
according to the newspapers, that Ramey was on the phone with
the Pentagon and claiming to not having seen the debris yet. So
the actual photo shoot must have been later than this. It sure
wasn't 3:15 plus or minus 15 minutes.

>This puts Bond in Ramey's office _before_ the Roswell Disc story
>broke on AP and nearly 3 hours _before_ Newton allegedly came
>on duty(6pm) to have his picture taken with his debris.

Again, this is total garbage. Given the multitudinous
uncertainties, LaVoie's "precise" shadow time is highly
questionable at best (it certainly can't be pinned down to
within +/- 15 minutes), and all other evidence (including Bond
Johnson's original story) points to the photos being taken much
later.

>When Bond took his pictures there was _no_ news story,

But in Johnson's original account, he was dispatched because
there _was_ a news story. In fact, he said his editor had gotten
Ramey's involvement from the AP newswire which is why he was
sent to the base. This would suggest around 4:53 p.m. time when
AP first mentioned Ramey.

>he didn't even take any written copy just the photos.

But when Kevin Randle originally interviewed Johnson, several
times he claimed to be the author of the AP story. At the very
least he would have conveyed to someone at the Star-Telegram
what he had been told by Ramey.

>The cover story
>didn't appear to kick in until sometime between 4 and 5pm and
>probably accounts for the _sanitisation_ noticable in the
>later Marcel and Newton pictures where a lot of the more
>_interesting_ dibris seems to have gone missing.

Again with your old claim that the debris was somehow
"sanitized." It was just a stock weather balloon and radar
target. There was no exotic debris displayed. No "sanitizing"
needed to be done. There has been some minor movement of some
the debris between the Ramey and Ramey/Dubose photos and the
Marcel and Newton photos, but that's about it. Nothing has been
removed or "sanitized."

That being said, it is interesting that various debris and other
details enable a determination of the order of the photos. They
place the Marcel and Newton photos closer together in time, with
Marcel being photographed somewhere between Newton and
Ramey/Dubose. E.g., the "hatbox" size wrapped package (Marcel's
wrapped "real" debris from Roswell?) that was stuck behind the
center chair in the Ramey & Ramey/Dubose photos is now seen
leaning against the radiator in the Marcel and Newton photos
(and the chair is now pushed back against the wall). However the
tie on the radiator in the Ramey/Dubose/Marcel photos is missing
in the Newton photo. The white hat visible on the left chair in
the Ramey/Dubose "grim" photo (supposedly Johnson's hat) is
missing in the Marcel facing left photo and Newton photo (in the
rest of the photos, the position is obscured by Ramey's or
Marcel's body).

There are also some small radar target debris pieces that match
up in position and orientation in the Marcel/Newton photos, but
not in the various Ramey photos. So it would appear that the
order of the photos was Ramey/Dubose followed by Marcel then
Newton, or perhaps the reverse (an interesting scenario in
itself, though I doubt it).

I do agree with Neil that exactly what happened that afternoon
in Ramey's office has never been fully determined and much can
be learned by careful scrutiny of the photos. However, most of
the claims of the RPIT group on this score I consider to be
highly erroneous if not bizarre. E.g., I've actually had
arguments with you guys over your claim this wasn't a real radar
target because some of the stick pieces were shorter than
specified in the schematic. Hmmm, aren't broken pieces shorter
than whole pieces? That's how weird some of your arguments get.

>There's a lot more yet to come out regarding the FW pictures,
>and I go over some of these new finding in an article in the
>forthcoming edition of UFO Data magazine published here in the
>UK shortly.

>http://www.ufodata.co.uk/

I look forward to it Neil, but I've been hearing these claims
for years, such as the yet unnamed Star-Telegram employee who
supposedly backs up Johnson's revised claimed of being in
Ramey's office before the story even broke in the news or Ramey
claiming to first see the debris. (Supposedly Ramey did this
because he owed the Star-Telegram a big favor--Hah!)

Bond Johnson later clearly changed and confabulated many parts
of his account in order to turn himself from a minor participant
into the centerpiece of the Roswell story, the photographer of
the "real" Roswell debris and in his old age heroically tried to
make the public aware of this. But his many revised versions
were all bunk. All he photographed was a weather balloon and
radar target, as he _originally_ said he was told by General
Ramey (later changed by Johnson to Ramey not having any idea
what it was), and which is clearly reflected in the news
accounts of the time, including one of the Star-Telegram stories
which he _originally_ claimed to write and was the basis of many
AP accounts:


"As soon as the 'disk' was brought into General Ramey's office,
he and Colonel Dubose tabbed it as a weather device. The
weather officer on duty at the time, Warrant Officer Newton,
merely made identification positive."


See: http://www.roswellproof.com/FortWorthST_July9.html


David Rudiak



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com