From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:45:22 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:15:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Ramey Message 'Eagle Seal' - Sparks


 >Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:09:41 +0100
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >Subject: Re: Ramey Message 'Eagle Seal'

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 21:35:57 EDT
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 10:00:55 -0400
 >>Subject: Ramey Message 'Eagle Seal' [was: Review of

 >>>Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 17:30:01 +0100
 >>>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Review of Pflock's 'Roswell'

 >>Neil,

 >>I give you numbers you give me doubletalk. It is text of a
 >>message, not an image of a bird, an eagle!

 >>Do we only get pelicanism out of the UK these days?

 >>I gave you specific _quantitative_ measurements of the angles of
 >>orientation of the paper - which you totally ignore because you
 >>can't refute them - and you respond by pointing to irrelevant
 >>minor ripples or deviations from a flat surface.

 >Brad,

<snip>

 >You give _one_ all encompassing angle of 15 degrees, I think
 >this is an over generalisation of the situation. That upper
 >section of the message is both folded and curved and though some
 >points _might_ present a 15 degree profile to the camera, others
 >undoubtedly _don't_.

Neil,

You _still_ don't give any _numbers_. You still have no
quantitative evidence. You're still blowing smoke with idle
speculation instead of facts. You still point to irrelevancies
and distractions, apparently hoping it will all seem so
technical to most people that no one will notice.

Let me give you FACTS in response to your baseless speculation
and distractions:

FACT 1: About 84% of the total area of your imaginary "seal" is
on a plateau portion of the Ramey paper that _is_ in fact at
about a steep 15° angle to the camera. (See detailed inventory
below.)

Hence you continue to distract us with irrelevancies about paper
angles that relate only to about 16% of the "seal." You ignore
the fact that about 84% of the "seal" is in fact at the angle
that I measured and that that 15° angle is enormously steeper
than the 45° angle that you imagine for the "seal." There is no
way out of this Neil.


 >You have continuously changing angles of presentation to the
 >camera above and below a mean, caused by those "insignificant",
 >as you call them, ripples in the paper.

FACT 2: There are no "ripples" in the upper left corner of the
Ramey Message. The only "ripples" or creases are located
_elsewhere_ on the paper and are caused by:

   (a) the folding into four rectangles,

   (b) the warping caused by General Ramey's fingers and thumb,
    which can easily be seen from the back on the Bettmann
    Archive photo, and there are no ripples in that far upper
    left corner.

One can see that Ramey is gripping and crinkling the paper in
his fingers and those fingers are not touching the upper half of
the paper at all.

 >>You overlay an "eagle seal" over the Ramey message that is about
 >>45° off horizontal whereas the Ramey paper is itself at about
 >>15° in that top-left corner.

 >That top left corner itself is curving, check it's illumination.


FACT 3: The upper left corner upturns sharply at the edge of and
beyond the alleged rim of the "seal" but the main body of the
alleged "seal" is on a flat plateau at about a 15° angle from
edge-on horizontal. The upturn is obviously irrelevant to the
flat plateau area where the supposed "eagle" is seen.

 >>Your seal overlay is therefore
 >>grossly improperly positioned by a factor of three, an error of
 >>300%, a few degrees' deviation for ripples or curves makes no
 >>dent in the size of the overall error, of 300%. How can there
 >>possibly be any dispute over this? Is it because angles are
 >>involved? Is it because numbers are involved? Do people just
 >>tune out as soon as they see a number or a concept they think is
 >>too intricate? Why is this so hard? This problem would make a
 >>laughingstock in any university math or physics department in
 >>the world.

 >But because of the curvatures in the sheet, it _is_ possible for
 >a seal/stamp located where I claim to see it to be visible as
 >it's seen in the image. A practical _real_world_ demonstration
 >shows this to be the case.

Is it now only "possible"??? Either there is an eagle seal there
or there isn't. Your "practical _real_world_ demonstration" of a
seal that is quite properly angled at 15° shows this _not_ to be
the case but a physical impossibility since you are imagining a
perfectly undistorted "seal" at an angle of 45° from the blobs
on the Ramey Message. The two are radically different.

<snip>

 >>Let me recap here: You've made a serious mistake about the
 >>orientation of the paper in the top-left corner of the Ramey
 >>message. It is a physical impossibility for an "eagle seal" at a
 >>45° angle, as you've overlaid it over the Ramey message image,
 >>to be on the surface of the paper, which is much flatter at a
 >>15° angle, as it would float above the paper by nearly 1 inch.

 >>You have the equivalent of a pelican outflying a civil aircraft.

 >Brad, you may be interested in the plot to be found at:

 >http://www.thefortworthphotographs.freeserve.co.uk/images/section.gif

I understand the concept of ripples so why do you present this
diagram when you later admit (see below) this is hypothetical
and illustrative and has nothing to do with the Ramey Message?
This is irrelevant distraction!

 >This demonstrates my objections to treating the Ramey message
 >paper as a predominantly flat sheet.

 >The diagram shown represents a cross section through a paper
 >sheet having a surface rippled and curved. For simplicity the
 >cross section plot was created with a series of regular curves
 >of fixed radius.

 >Before I go any further let me make it clear this image should
 >_not_ be taken as anything more than an illustrative model.
 >It's _not_ to be taken as a direct representation of the ramey
 >message paper, it's cross section is still unknown.

Irrelevant distraction! The cross-section of the Ramey Message
_is_ known! Just look at the back of the paper in the Bettmann
Archive photo. Just make some measurements on the actual Ramey
Message photo instead of spouting off nonsense.

FACT 4: The alleged "seal" covers so much, vertically, of the
upper 3 inches of the Ramey Message that it starts close to the
edge of Ramey's thumb at the half-way fold and goes off the top
edge of the paper. Yet it's only supposed to be about 1.3 inches
wide. How can it be more than 3 inches tall? This is a physical
impossibility.

Neil answer this crucial question: Do you or do you not "see"
the top of the "seal" running off the top edge of the paper as
well as the bottom edge of the "seal rim" nearly touching
Ramey's thumb?

FACT 5: Your imaginary "seal" is too perfect in shape to fit
the sloped paper. Far edges of the imagined "seal" do fall onto
portions of the paper at a different angle than the 15° plateau
on which the main body of the supposed" seal rests -- yet there
is none of the extreme distortion one would expect, in fact
there is no distortion at all. It's as if your imagination has
created a perfect "seal" that does not follow the real world
orientation and distortion of the paper it is supposed to be on.
The upper left portion of the supposed "rim" does extend over on
to the upturned corner of the paper (which is at about 35°) on a
small section of rim amounting to only about 2% of the total
area of the "seal." Yet that part of the imagined circular
double "rim" still remains perfectly circular and is not
distorted. The bottom of the imagined "rim" extends so far down
the paper that it actually reaches the center fold where the
paper is close to 90° to the camera.

So while you continue to try to confuse us with nonsense about
ripples and different angles that aren't relevant let me give
quantitative facts:

FACT 5: Most of the imagined "seal," about 84% of it (see
measurements below), is on a portion of the Ramey Message paper
at 15° including a small portion extending off the paper but at
the same angle (about 5%). Only small portions of the "seal"
extend over onto portions of the paper at different angles,
about 16% of the "seal." These portions are as follows:

Upper Left of "Seal's Rim": About 0.1 x 0.3 inch (2% of total
area) at about 35°

Lower Portion "Seal & Rim": About 0.3 x 0.6 inch (14% of total
area) slopes down from 15° portion to 45°-60° portion

TOTAL: About 16% of "Seal" on portions of paper sloped greater
        than 15°

        About 84% of "seal" on the portion of paper at about 15°

My sad prediction is that you will continue to confuse us with
distractions about the 16% portions of the seal that are at
angles to the camera greater than the main body or 84% of the
"seal" that is at 15° and continue to evade the implications of
this shape distortion that is not seen in your imagined outline
of the "seal" that is 100% angled at the entirely different 45°
angle.


Brad