4/1/2012 Chris Lambright and Ray Stanford

[Muadib]

Factual error: We DO NOT presently run the ufowatchdog.com - Home of the undisputed investigation exposing Sean David Morton site, which means we have no control over what they present. In saying that, the Romanek/Peckman association has long been questionable. At the same time, Stanford has gotten real scientific acclaim for his work as an amateur paleontologist. He did some wacky things early on, but his work has been far more consistent in his later years.

My mistake then sirs, I figured that you guys ran that sight since all the entries are full of links to Paracast shows. I agree that anything involving Peckamn is questionable, however with all of the stuff in this thread about Stanford's past he would be equally questionable. His work in Paleontology is definitely above reproach though I don't really see how it relates to his work in this field. Thank you for clearing that up for me and keep up the good work.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

We had control of UFO Watchdog for a short time. The founder took it back, and never used some of our updates. But that all happened two years ago.

At least Stanford has real achievements. Romanek has none.

 

[Muadib]

We had control of UFO Watchdog for a short time. The founder took it back, and never used some of our updates. But that all happened two years ago.

At least Stanford has real achievements. Romanek has none.

Partially true, Jack Kashar among others have said that his equations may lead to future breakthroughs although to my knowledge nothing has come of them yet. Stanford does have achievements in Paleontology but none in the field of ufology or paranormal investigations that I'm aware of. Like I said I have no personal stake in either case and I don't presume to judge whether either of them are telling the truth or not, time will tell. Just seems a bit strange to me to be claiming to have smoking gun UFO evidence and holding on to it for 30 years but like I said that's his choice, even if I don't agree with his reasons.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Then you never heard of Stanford's book about the Socorro, NM case?

 

[Muadib]

Then you never heard of Stanford's book about the Socorro, NM case?

I have heard of the book, though I haven't read it. Plenty of people, including Romanek, have books, that doesn't help me one way or the other when trying to decide whether they're credible or not.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The Socorro case is one of those classic sightings. You really should widen your perspective..

 

[Muadib]

The Socorro case is one of those classic sightings. You really should widen your perspective..

Are you suggesting that because I haven't read one book about one specific case I should widen my perspective? I could probably name some books in the field that you haven't read either, yet I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to tell you to widen your perspective due to the fact that you missed a few.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I think you should bone up on the classic cases, that's all. There are suggested reading lists in other forum threads.

 

[Muadib]

I think you should bone up on the classic cases, that's all. There are suggested reading lists in other forum threads.

Thanks but I've read plenty of books about classic cases in this country and others, not at all saying my knowledge is anywhere close to complete and I am constantly adding to it, but I think you're jumping to conclusions based on the fact that I haven't read Stanford's book. I'll check it out if I can find it but I think that you should chill on the judgements.

 

[Voyager]

I've been a listener for quite some time, never really felt compelled to join the forums before listening to this episode. I want to start out by saying that I'm not making any judgements as to whether or not Ray Stanford is telling the truth or not, I tend to take people at their word until they've shown that their word cannot be trusted. I'd love to see his video evidence, however, it is his evidence and he can do with it as he pleases. My question or point is more for the hosts of this show.

The question is this: Why the double standard? Let me explain. They have Jeff Peckman and I assume by association Stan Romanek listed in their UFO hall of shame, because of Jeff's past shady dealings involving a product called the Metatron Harmonizer or whatever. Yet after reading this entire thread it seems that Ray Stanford has been involved in the same type of shady dealings as Mr. Peckman yet he's not listed. Why the double standard? These guys crapped all over Romanek case simply because Jeff Peckman was involved and he's had shady dealings in the past involving stupid new age products so they assume that he's full of crap, yet so has Ray Stanford, but he's given the benefit of the doubt? Why? I don't really presume to judge either case, Romanek has some interesting aspects of his case like the equations but could be completely full of crap yet to include him in your hall of shame without having proved he's full of crap, simply because he's involved with Jeff Peckman doesn't make sense to me unless you're willing to hold everyone to the same standard.

Seems to me like there's a double standard here, if you're pals or related to the hosts you can come on and present 0 evidence and not get called on your sh*t, but if you're not, you get torn apart and thrown in the UFO hall of shame even though they haven't really managed to debunk one single aspect of your case, all it says in the hall of shame entry is there are inconsistencies even though they don't point any of them out. Most of the entry talks about Peckman and not Romanek other than some background about his case. I don't have any stake in who does or does not go in the hall of shame I just wanted to point out that when you claim to hold everyone to the same high standard of evidence, and in reality do not, why should anyone take your judgements seriously as to who is and who isn't telling the truth? I know I'll be taking the hosts judgements with a grain of salt in the future, which is a shame because I agree with most of their views on the subject and up to this episode was somewhat impressed with how they handled their guests and reserved making final judgements on people without having proof of a hoax or something like that, but then I found this forum and the hall of shame. Oh well.

Ray Stanford did manage to convince Texas financiers to fund Project Starlight International. It was serious science using the technology that was available at the time. I don't think Stanford achieved what he had hoped for. Chris O'Brien is biased in favor of Ray Stanford. Such is humans nature. Gene's platform is to apply critical thinking to far out claims. Does he always get it right, no. Not easy to sort out the signal from the noise.

 

[Muadib]

Ray Stanford did manage to convince Texas financiers to fund Project Starlight International. It was serious science using the technology that was available at the time. I don't think Stanford achieved what he had hoped for. Chris O'Brien is biased in favor of Ray Stanford. Such is humans nature. Gene's platform is to apply critical thinking to far out claims. Does he always get it right, no. Not easy to sort out the signal from the noise.

I agree 100%. And for the record I think they do a great job of it most of the time, but they need to apply that same critical thinking to the claims of friends and family members as well in my opinion. Also, your post was a bit difficult to read due to your font size and use of bold, just FYI.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

For the record, no family members are involved in this field that I know of. And, though Chris knows Stanford well, hence has had a good chance to check his evidence, my only encounters with him have been in connection with the show.

 

[Muadib]

For the record, no family members are involved in this field that I know of. And, though Chris knows Stanford well, hence has had a good chance to check his evidence, my only encounters with him have been in connection with the show.

I was talking about the show when Chris had his brother on but it's not really important, you guys do a great show, nobody gets it right 100% of the time and I think your track record is better than most.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I thought the Mayan show was fun. If my brother was alive and on my show, I'd give him a few lumps. He actually guested on Long John in the 60s, but only once.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

His work in Paleontology is definitely above reproach though I don't really see how it relates to his work in this field.

Science is science. His observational acuity can be utilized for many different scientific disciplines. Plus, he is very smart, so he can effectively analyze what he is observing.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Gene - Whaddya mean Romanek has no achievements? He's managed to hoodwink half of Ufology! The rascal!

 

[Bulk]

James McDonald, Paul Hill and Robert Schroeder all have written about the need to use instrumentation to better understand the UFO subject. Peter Davenport's passive radar also adds to this, as does Douglas Trumbull's mobile platforms. Hessdalen moved the ball forward with their efforts, also.

Ray Stanford has been using a variety of electronic sensors for a half a century. His book on Sorocco is the definitive work. He had even investigated the so-called university students hoax hypothesis promoted by Tony Bragalia.

I'm looking forward to seeing his presentation.

the bulk

 

[boomerang]

I'm shooting from the hip from a technical standpoint. But I don't think Davenport's passive radar would constitute good evidence one way or the other. It would be interesting to do and I really applaud his efforts. But what I see is a situation with so much artifact popping up in the system that we might we left with more questions than answers. It would also give the government one heck of an opportunity to spoof something they would probably dislike in the hands of civilians anyway.

Having said that--it would be interesting to put such a system together and see what happens. One or two good multiple witness visual plus radar cases could be very significant.

 

[Burnt State]

Thanks for the presentation. It was neat seeing the decor in his home. I must say that when I see how credible and established Ray is in paleontology I lean towards giving him the benefit of the doubt in other areas of research. He's got a good track record.

Since this thread has been reactivated I wanted to point out that brilliance in one field of study does not necessitate similar findings in others. History is filled with all sorts of anomalies regarding distinguished figures of high repute. In fact some of the most bizarre and unbelievable of concepts have come from their own inexhaustible imaginations. Conan Doyle made the case for faeries; Tesla believed in Martians and that they were on their way soon; and I just finished listening to a tale of a highly regarded scholarly priest, respected for his historical work on Gregorian chants, who believed in a device that worked like a television and could replay scenes from across history which included witnessing the crucifixion of Christ at Calvary.

Consequently past moments of paleontological glory do not mean Ray has proof of anything extraterrestrial.

 

[Dave Murphy]

I wanted to point out that brilliance in one field of study does not necessitate similar findings in others.

Not always, but I disagree. A multidisciplinary approach to the study of any frontier science yields the greatest potential advancement. Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and the writings of Richard Rorty argue this point quite eloquently. This is exactly why Vallee's Passport to Magonia was such an important work and why Vallee the astronomer, computer programmer, venture capitalist, folklorist & ufologist and Stanford the anthropologist, paleontologist, plasma physicist & ufologist might take issue as well.