UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 24

Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 14:12:06 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:55:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Rudiak

>From: Neil Morris <neil.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 17:40:46 +0100
>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:12:12 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>>From: Neil Morris <neil.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:58:41 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>Just for fun, let's all go around again. First, there would be
>>no reason to send Johnson out to the base if there was no news
>>story. This simply defies logic.

>This point as I recall was put to Bond on several occasions to
>which he responded that the "story" itself was _not_ expected
>to _break_ in Fort Worth itself but elsewhere ie, Roswell or
>infact Washington. He was just tasked with getting the

Every time another hole in Johnson's story or the RPIT version
was brought up, he or his RPIT group would alter it again,
spinning some new account try to fix things. In this version,
Johnson is the inept reporter who fails to cover his own story.
The weird logic from Neil offered here is that the story was
supposed to come from elsewhere?

Huh? Did I miss something in my high school journalism class
about basic journalism?

Historically what happened, from actual news dispatches, is it
came out that Marcel and the "disk" had been dispatched to
"higher headquartes" in Fort Worth to see Ramey. Hence the
center of gravity shifted to Fort Worth & Ramey instead of
Roswell and Washington, which is why Johnson, in his _original_
story said he was dispatched to Ramey's office to begin with.
And of course he was going to cover the story, not just cover
his ears, take photos, then leave.

>and we know from our other reporter

Who has never been named. I've been hearing about this this
person for years now. For all I know, this reporter is
imaginary, and even if he is not, there is no reason to believe
this person's recollections of what happened are necessarily
accurate, particularly when they conflict with a lot of other
evidence, such as news stories of the day.

>he _did_not_ gather any news
>info while he was out there.

Yet Johnson claimed multiple times that he did write the story
when originally interviewed. You can read the quotes here from
1999 when I took him to task about his ever changing story and
his accusations that Kevin Randle had misquoted him:


Just a few days before I wrote that post, Johnson was again
claiming to be the source of the story, in fact being the only
reporter to interview Ramey. To quote from the above post where
Johnson said this on Updates, Apr. 25, 2000:

"...I also know that there is no evidence that any [other]
reporters ever arrived since ****no one else filed any direct
quotes as the result of a personal interview of Ramey.****"

So this is Johnson again definitely claiming to be more than
just a photographer and also acting as a reporter whoWAS
gathering news while he out there, totally contrary to Neil's

>Using your own argument _if_ the
>story _had_ broken at that time why _didn't_ he gather any
>copy?, yet we know he didn't because our ST journalist told us
>who did write all the ST's "disc" stories later that evening.

Even if your perpetually anomynous "source" is correct about
someone else writing the story, how does this somehow disprove
that Johnson didn't supply him with the information? For sure
Johnson was claiming that he DID collect the information,
which only stands to reason.

>Doesn't this infact indicate that the information to hand at
>that time at the ST was _extreamly_ fragmentory, as Bond said
>they were waiting for the main story to arrive and expected it
>to come in from elsewhere. You also have to put youself into
>the1947 mindset too, journalists were not thick on the ground and
>relied heavily on news feeds from the wireservices, they were
>also by all accounts not quite the rabit pack hounds in chase
>of a story that we seem to have today.

And what does this have to do with anything?

>Our timing of Bond in Ramey's office at 3.15pm'ish indicates
>he must have been leaving the ST office around 2.30'ish.
>2.30pm FW time preceeds the 1st national AP wire release
>at 3.26pm FW time by almost an hour. There was certainly
>no national "story" out there at that time, there _could_ have
>been early "wire chatter" on the newswires similar to what we
>see in the UP wires from Roswell and this could have prompted
>an early call to Ramey's office to clarify things and which in
>turn prompted Bond's trip out to the base.

What I see here is endless speculation and no facts. I also see
Neil again trotting out the 3:15 time, which is based on a
highly questionable analysis of an outside shadow through a slit
in Ramey's curtain, as I've pointed out ad nauseum in prior

This ridiculous early time scenario is another manipulation of
the story by Johnson to make himself of the big hero there in
Ramey's office before anyone else got the story. Originally his
account was that he arrived at the office during the shift
change, there was no one else available, and that's why he got
sent. This, of course, also begs the question as to whether
there would a shift change at 2:30.

Also ponder this quote from Ramey from a United Press story:


"***Ramey said he couldn't let anybody look at the thing or
photograph it because Washington had clamped a 'security lid' on
all but the sketchiest details .***

"'The object,' he said, 'is in my office right now and as far as
I can see there is nothing to get excited about. It looks to me
like the remnant of a weather balloon and a radar reflector.'"

This quote came _after_ the national AP story hit the wire at
3:26 Fort Worth time. We also know from various newspapers such
as the New York Times and San Francisco Examiner that Ramey
began changing the story an hour after this, or around 4:30 and
was at that time speaking to the Army Air Force press room at
the Pentagon, with Gen. Vandenberg directing the phone calls.

In fact, in the Washington Post account, Ramey when first called
said he hadn't seen the debris yet, though it was sitting in his
office, then he went to take a look:


Ramey also spoke to a reporter from the San Francisco Examiner
at this time and was likewise identifying the "disc" as a
weather balloon and radar target:


Now note the New York P.M. UP account establishes that at around
4:30 p.m. in Fort Worth, Ramey was saying that nobody had been
allowed to "look at the thing or photograph it" because of the
security. And the Washington Post similarly has Ramey saying he
hadn't seen it yet before going to take a look. Yet you are
again claiming that Bond Johnson was allowed to both see and
photograph it over an hour before this.

I've pointed these little historical factoids out before in
prior debates, and like everything else from the RPIT side, it
is just ignored because it conflicts with their revisionist

>>Two, Johnson said that he wrote the news story because there
>>was no one else to write it. He claimed that seven or eight times
>>over two interviews until I told him that his new claims made
>>no sense based on last paragraph of the news story... then
>>suddenly he didn't know who wrote it.

>As I said in an earlier post Bond made some _wrong_
>assumptions, he usually _did_ write the copy for his picture
>stories. But we know from an independant witness in the ST
>newsroom who was there _after_ Bond left that the night's
>"disc story" copy was handled by the city desk editor.

>Bond simply assumed it was just like any one of the many other
>stories he _did_ write.

More rationalization and spin. No, it wasn't "wrong
assumptions." Originally (1989) he definitely claimed to be the
author, i.e., that was his _memory_ of it. As recently as 2000
he was again claiming to be the sole source of the story from

Why all this spin from the RPIT side? Because Johnson also
originally said he walked into Ramey's office, the debris was
already laid out there, and Ramey told him it was from a
balloon, which is exactly what is reflected in the Star-Telegram
story the next day. Then Johnson got it into his head that he
photographed the real Roswell saucer debris and changed his
story. Suddenly Ramey didn't know what it was, didn't tell him
it was from a balloon, so if the newspapers like the Star-
Telegram or the S.F. Examiner or UP have Ramey IDing it as a
balloon early on before Newton the weather officer was brought
in, then this must have happened after Johnson was there, not

The story from Johnson and his gullible RPIT group kept getting
more and more elaborate. Instead of Johnson being sent to
Ramey's during the shift change and when AP first mentioned
Ramey's involvement on the newswire at shortly before 5 p.m.,
they had to move the time way back to when Ramey had real saucer
debris on display and didn't know what it was. Johnson even
claimed to open the packages of debris while Ramey was out of
his office and arranged it on the floor for pictures. Then it
got elaborated even more into the "real" saucer debris getting
mixed in with radar target debris which was later "sanitized" to
remove the real debris. It just goes on and on like this,
nonsense piled upon nonsense.

>>Three, if Johnson took the pictures and was out in Ramey's
>>office alone, why didn't he make notes for the news story even
>>if he didn't write it. You've got a reporter in place and then
>>he doesn't do basic journalism. This simply defies logic...
>>though it does mean you can now claim that Johnson
>>photographed some of the real debris.

>Because he was tasked as a photographer and told to take the
>pictures, _not_ write up a story, it (the story details) were
>expected to come in over the wire from Roswell or elsewhere.
>After all the guys at Fort Worth hadn't been the ones who
>discovered or recovered the "disc" those guys out at Roswell
>had done that, wouldn't they be the ones with all the

And yet Johnson, even in 2000, right here on UpDates, was still
claiming to be the guy who got the exclusive story from Ramey.
This would also mean that the Star-Telegram story, regardless of
who wrote it, quoting Ramey as saying he instantly identified it
as a weather device came from Johnson. But since this conflicts
with the RPIT revisionist story that Ramey didn't know what it
was when Johnson was there, Johnson has to be turned into a
ventriloquist dummy of reporter who doesn't even bother to cover
the story he has been sent to cover.

>>What this really boils down to is Johnson making multiple
>>claims. It boils down to a news story in the newspaper that
>>said plainly that Ramey told him it was a balloon. It boils
>>down to a time-line that is not based on sun angles and
>>speculation about daylight savings time or standard time,
>>but on documented fact.

>>It is clear that Johnson went out there. He took the six
>>photographs he claimed. He took notes about what Ramey said
>>and he returned to the newspaper and developed his film and
>>wrote his story. He knew when he went out that it had to do
>>with flying saucers and he was told immediately that it had
>>a weather balloon.

>Kevin, you can take away Bond's testimony completely should
>you wish.

>The analysis of the photo's _does_not_ depend on it. They
>stand on evidence gathered from within the photo's themselves.

Which is about 99% flawed if not totally inane. It's like Alice
in Wonderland with you guys. I've seen you guys even argue that
it wasn't even a radar target there, because some of the sticks
were shorter than intact, unbroken sticks, or that the radar
targets didn't have white strips when they did.

>What would you rather have as evidence?, 60 year old memories
>acknowleged as being _fragmentory_ or physical evidence within
>a proven historical photograph that can tell you
>exactly(+-10mins) when that photograph was taken?

And there you go again, Neil, just repeating the RPIT party
line, ignoring all the points I've made why you can't possibly
determine the time to such accuracy from an obviously flawed
shadow analysis. Nope, the time is definite to within 10

>As an Intelligence Officer do
>you not see the worth of this? Memories fade, memories can be
>mistaken and assumptions wrongly made from them.

How about those contemporary news stories that have nothing to
do with memory, the ones you keep ignoring, like Ramey saying he
hadn't let anybody see or photograph the debris yet? (UP) Or
Ramey saying the debris was in his office but he hadn't seen it
yet? (Washington Post) Yet these statements from the news
accounts were made by Ramey an hour or so after the Roswell
press release, or over an hour _after_ your claimed "definitive"
photoanalysis time when Johnson was supposed to have already
photographed the debris with Ramey. How does that work? Did
Ramey time travel back an hour after making those statements?

>But those 4
>negatives are a little bit of _living_ history frozen at the
>moment they were taken and hold far more real historical
>detail than any memory could ever recall after 60 years.

Yes, and they can tell us a great deal, but not in the hands of
people who don't know what they are doing.

David Rudiak

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



[ 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