A myth has been in existence since 1922 about Keynes, Ramsey and the logical theory of probability that Keynes constructed in Parts I-V of the A Treatise on Probability, 1921. This myth claims that Ramsey found major errors in logic and epistemology in Keynes’s work, which supposedly was about mysterious,unfathomable non measurable,non numerical Platonic probabilities that could only be intuited. Keynes supposedly, according to this myth, instantly realized that his theory had been decimated, annihilated and demolished by the 18 year old boy genius, Frank Ramsey. Keynes then supposedly retracted his theory in 1931 and supported the subjective theory of probability presented in 1926 by Ramsey in “Truth and Probability” thereafter. This myth is the foundation for Robert Skidelsky’s Post Keynesian assessment of Keynes’s Theory of Probability and appears to be what S. Bradley presents as Keynes’s theory in the latest 2019 assessment of Keynes’s contributions in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In C. Misak’s recent 2020 biography of Ramsey ,as well as in other reviews and media, this myth is simply being restated. In reality, Ramsey’s critique of Keynes, in either 1922 or 1926, was so poor that it is quite amazing that the vast majority of economists, philosophers, psychologist, and historians in the 20th and 21st centuries continue to believe something for which there is not a shred of historical evidence. Keynes was not going to waste his very valuable time restating the points he had already made in the A Treatise on Probability for an 18 year old boy. Everything is there in Parts II-V of the A Treatise on Probability that demonstrate that Ramsey’s views on Keynes’s theory of probability are nothing short of silly, preposterous and absolute nonsense masquerading as serious scholarship. What explains the longevity, nearly 100 years of this myth is the complete and total failure of academics to read the technical parts of the A Treatise on Probability, Parts II, III and V. Emile Borel made it very clear in his 1924 review of Keynes’s book, a review that never mentions Ramsey ‘s 1922 review, that his review will be about Part I of Keynes’s book only. Borel, alone among academics over the last 100 years, honestly admitted that he could not follow Keynes in Part II, although he also realized that this was the most important part of the book.For this oversight, he apologized to both Keynes and Russell in print. The Ramsey myth exists only due to the failure of historians, psychologists, philosophers and economists to read Part II of the A Treatise on Probability.