4/1/2012 Chris Lambright and Ray Stanford

[mike]

I didn't start the name-calling nor did I invite such vitriol to be spewed in my direction.

Deep breath, count to ten........

You did start this Chris, page 4 of this thread is almost entirely taken up with your rant towards the audience, including comments like "a couple of you are on thin ice"

On thin ice, carrys the implied threat of a banning, to threaten us with a banning because we have an opinion contrary to yours IS an insult, and Imo an abuse of that power.

I think its pretty clear debating this matter with you is akin to debating religion with a believer, you are simply to close to the topic to be objective.

As to the miles youve put on your truck etc etc etc..... etc etc etc.
You did that for you, it was your choice to pursue your passion, it does not translate to some sort of Hierarchal advantage here or anywhere, It doesnt give you a throne or fancy hat, it doesnt make you the Pope of the Paranormal, how your clear suggestion that it does make you look from my pov, i'll refrain from posting in deferance to decorum. But its not the self inflated view you clearly hold

And while you didnt use the word lowly, it is clearly implied in the context of the other words used.

I am normally of the "if you cant say anything nice, say nothing " school, but when you insult and threaten me with the "thin ice" comment, then you are no longer entitled to a higher standard of consideration, than that which you've shown others.


But my bloody oath you started this, page four of this thread is replete with name calling like anonymous armchair thinkers .

 

[mike]

One more thing Mike, how can you post a video trying to discredit Ray? A reptilian, are you serious? It seems a bit paranoid.

I didnt post that video, its on someones blog, to which i linked,
But i agree with you, ive never given much credence to the reptillian shape shifting videos out there. Its pretty wacky stuff imo, not to be taken seriously

 

[Kim323]

Mike said: "I think it's pretty clear debating this matter with you is akin to debating religion with a believer, you are simply too close to the topic to be objective." Boy, that brings back memories of the thread about Jesus, where I wanted to express my views about how dispassionate and hard-nosed scholars had studied Jesus, the gospels, and yes, specifically his miracles, exorcisms, and healings. I did mention I was Christian but that my perspective would not be from that, but would examine the rational methods used by these scholars. The thread turned into derisiveness and ridicule. When all I did was mention that there had been criticism of one Massey regarding his views on the Christianity as myth school which Mike had brought up in a long cut and paste, he posted an email from Ms. Murdock that was very provocative and aggressive toward people who criticized Massey, labeling it defamation. To me, Mike's quote above sums up the assumption that anything religious will be met with disdain and derision. That's what I felt from him, even though I had been trying to make my points not as a Christian apologist but wanted to show how hard rationality has been applied, yes, specifically and to each, of Jesus's deeds as described in the gospels. But the door continued to be closed and slammed. Why? Because in my opinion Mike sees religion as something to be ridiculed on the face of it, and he won't listen. When he included Acharya S's (Murdock's) email accusing those who criticized Massey of defamation, that actually frightened me a bit and I went back and read what I'd written. I had said that the vast consensus of Egyptologists disagreed strongly with Massey. Yet here in this thread Mike is raising holy heck because he feels he is being accused of defamation. Anyway, it can all be read on the recent Jesus thread. In my opinion, Mike wants it his way, didn't want to be engaged intellectually, so resorted to poking fun. The quote of his at the beginning of this post shows that to me.

 

[Kim323]

You know, I have to follow this up with an observation on Mike's criticism of Chris's miles on his truck and work in the field as his own business and that bestows nothing special. That's how I felt about my hard work and study for decades and decades on history and the history of religion and yes on reading many scholarly studies on the gospels, not that it bestowed on me any special privileges or homage in the Jesus thread, but I did feel I had something to say on the topic, but the door was closed, though it took a huge lot of cut and paste for me to realize that I as a person and I as a student of religion was of no intellectual consequence because the subject was RELIGION, and specifically, JESUS, and in my opinion those are automatic targets of derision. If you think about it though, Jesus and what he did as described in the gospels ARE in a sense PARANORMAL. I think Chris should be proud of his work.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Deep breath, count to ten........

armchair thinkers .

Great name for a neo-prog rock band w/ arty pretentions, fab keyboards, da-da-esque lyrics and a lead singer named Nigel.

 

[mike]

I stand by my observation, Chris is too close to the subject (Ray Stanford) to be able to be objective about it.
I have no doubt that if Steven Greer had made the claim he had great footage, but wouldnt back that claim by showing the footage, Chris would be one of the first to decry that as BS.

Just because Ray is Chris's friend, doesnt mean he gets a free ticket to make such claims and then refuse to back them up.

And i also stand by my observation, that such a scenario is Indistinguishable from a hoax.
The operative word being Indistinguishable, we are unable to test for ourselves the veracity of the claim, because the person making the claim is hiding the evidence he claims to have.

Chris hasnt seen the footage, by his own admission hes seen one frame, which could be anything, and in no way constitutes proof there is footage.
The only thing Chris can honestly claim is there is proof for a single frame , not footage.

Ray cant have it both ways, he cant say "i saw a UFO" and i have the camera footage to prove it...... and then say but i wont show the footage.

It really is no different to Billy Meiers claim to have a ray gun that can burn a hole in a tree, but not be willing to show anyone the gun.

So the scenario is Indistinguishable from a hoax, we have the claim but nothing to back it up, nothing to allow us to distinguish it one way or the other.

We can not establish hes hoaxing, any more than we can establish he's telling the truth.
Without evidence the claim its the truth is Indistinguishable from a hoax

If the likes of Greer had made the same claim, and excuses....... i dont doubt for a minute this claim would be one Chris would decry as BS

 

[mike]

Great name for a neo-prog rock band w/ arty pretentions, fab keyboards, da-da-esque lyrics and a lead singer named Nigel.

Even better.................

LOL at the 24 second mark "grip your armchairs tight....."

 

[trainedobserver]

Great name for a neo-prog rock band w/ arty pretentions, fab keyboards, da-da-esque lyrics and a lead singer named Nigel.

Oh, good. A favorite subject of mine. Great names for rock bands. Ok, I'll just throw out my ultimate unused name for a rock band right off the bat. Industrial Vagina. There, I've shot my wad.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I stand by my observation, Chris is too close to the subject (Ray Stanford) to be able to be objective about it...Chris hasnt seen the footage, by his own admission hes seen one frame, which could be anything, and in no way constitutes proof there is footage.
The only thing Chris can honestly claim is there is proof for a single frame , not footage.

Not true. I have seen multiple frames from several events including the 12-12-77 footage.

It really is no different to Billy Meiers claim to have a ray gun that can burn a hole in a tree, but not be willing to show anyone the gun.

Also not true. He presented his data to an invited group of scientists in Bavaria during a recent trip to Germany and has had one-on-one's with a number of noted physicists, etc. Yeah, you are right: I'm too close to the subject of real, diagnostic scientific evidence of UFO technology. If you scrutinize the field of real AAO analysts, it's obvious to me that Ray is on the right "scientific" track. And he has the data and analysis to present to the "ivory towers." Ray is the only human (that I know of) that has captured verifiable optical data that affords us breakthrough analysis of apparent anomalous object technology. Yeah, I'm too close---and proudly so!

So the scenario is Indistinguishable from a hoax, we have the claim but nothing to back it up, nothing to allow us to distinguish it one way or the other. We can not establish hes hoaxing, any more than we can establish he's telling the truth. Without evidence the claim its the truth is Indistinguishable from a hoax

"We?" Yeah, you're right--we can't.

 

[mike]

My mistake, looking back i see you did say youve seen frames, but even so frames do not a movie footage make

Sorry Chris, but he's all talk for now in my mind. I'm glad he impressed a world class physicist. Was it someone as credulous as Brandenburg? The stuff he has shown is nebulous at best. I get the science. However, like Lance has said, the close up shots he likes to talk about have never been presented. That's the problem with people like him.
I do understand he has done some fantastic work in other fields, I do not want to take that way from him. However, when it comes to his "UFO" evidence, he has provided nothing of substance that proves anything.
If he doesn't want to share he should stop claiming how great it is.

And although Stanford studiously keeps secret the actual name of the supposed world class physicist who supports his conclusions (apparently using the scientific protocol of Scooby Doo and Mystery, Inc. rather than the standard one used by, you know, scientists), there is every indication that it really is Brandenberg. Brandenberg, if I recall correctly on his previous appearance, was HIGHLY complimentary of Stanford and seemed to know him well. It works like a believer's feedback loop, I think.

Lance

Welcome to the forum Chris.
You have to understand that Ray has been talking about this footage for quite sometime and some forum members have even offered to help him sort it out. All the while, anytime he's questioned about it he gets combative.

Whenever someone has footage that they claim to be really relevant but refuse to release it to the general public I become skeptical. I think many people think in the same manner.

It's frustrating. It doesn't make a difference if someone else rips off the image, which is one of Ray's excuses. You might as well never release any evidence about UFOs because somebody will fake it. Oh well.

I'm not personally being dismissive, Chris. But I do think Ray should begin to seriously consider letting loose with more of the evidence he says he has. You have to understand why people are skeptical.

I gotta say,matter researching Ray Stanford a bit the last day or two, I'm going to approach everything he says with EXTREME caution and wariness.

As I would with any person who claims to have channeled Jesus Christ and other assorted "masters" as well as having been involved with a known fraud steer in the contacted movement.

Keep in mind, he wasn't just a member of the AUM organization...

He was the head of it.

So he has a track record of being involved in TWO very dubious enterprises, and to my knowledge has done little to distance himself from it.

That to me suggests two possibilities.

One... He's a person with a very low threshold of critical thinking. Or..
Two... He preys on people with an interest in the paranormal, and like the leadership position and interest people show him (and possibly financial gain) that he can achieve in that field if he just waves around the secret knowledge and material he supposedly has.

I'd love to hear Gene and Chris perspective on him, as they have met him face to face.

And I'd like to point out that I'm not entirely discounting the possibility that he DOES have amazing still pictures and movies of UFOs. Nor that he HAS done some groundbreaking research in this field.

I'm just seeing two major warning signals here... Firstly, that he has collected or sat on this amazing material since the 70ies, with very little to show for it in terms of witnesses or references.

And secondly, that he has never himself explained or mentioned his role in AUM. Yes, I realize the two are unrelated, but I, and most other people I suspect, would approach someone who claims to have channeled Jesus Christ with a certain amount of skepticism...

None the less the consensus is clearly that claims without evidence breeds skepticism and mistrust........as well it should

 

[Gene Steinberg]

It comes back to this, however. It's his evidence, and it's up to him to decide when and if to release it. If you choose not to believe what he has to say, that's up to you. Sure I'd love to see his material, but I have never met Ray Stanford. But he has enough to offer to impress Chris quite a lot, and Chris isn't someone easily impressed. So you need to consider that as well.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Chris isn't someone easily impressed. So you need to consider that as well.

Thanks Gene. IMHO Ray's amazing data (1956-2012) and his insightful analytical work, stands head & shoulders above anyone else in the field of diagnostic AAO studies. And I've looked and listened. There is no one else IMO that comes close to his level of scientific insight into this "unexplained" phenomenon that exhibits verifiable scientific principles. Ray's data & analysis is (IMO) is beyond groundbreaking and focuses our efforts to empirically understand AAO technology.

 

[mike]

With Respect Gene, being impressed isnt proof of anything and doesnt count for much.
Bruce Macabee was "impressed" by the credentials of "source A" richard theilmann.
Who turned out to be a con artist

Ufology Exopolitics Special: Source A Exposed! « Reality Uncovered

Theilmann even managed to "impress" William H. Schmidt the commander of the New York Naval Order Commandery and former prosecutor and judge for Bergen County in New Jersey. The New York Commandery is the organisation Richard Theilmann frequently visited wearing full naval uniform and a vast array of medals and ribbons; medals and ribbons he had supposedly earned through various acts of gallantry and military campaigns he was allegedly part

Richard Theilmann & The Naval Order « Reality Uncovered


Lets see what Loren coleman has to say

Ray Stanford's Background as Contactee and Psychic


EMAIL FROM LOREN COLEMAN TO THE UFO-UPDATES LIST
No, I did not realize I was dealing with the Ray Stanford who in the 1970s, was the leader of the Association for the Understanding of Man (AUM), a national organization located in Austin, Texas. The purpose of AUM was given to Stanford via his so-called "psychic reading,..." given to him by "the Source," as well as "voices other than that of the Source [who] speak through the unconscious Stanford... speaking in various accents and inflections," as a 1977 AUM membership solicitation noted. "These voices were identified as exalted spiritual beings, members of an ethereal association called the 'White Brotherhood,' archangels, and even Jesus Christ himself -- all speaking courtesy of Stanford's 'borrowed' vocal cords, of course. Some of these 'Brothers' identified themselves as members of a UFO-operating alien race called 'The Watchers,'" as has been observed.
"Examination of the AUM material leaves no doubt that the 'Stanford readings' were the major 'drawing card' for the group's dues-paying members and its contributors - indeed, the organization's raison d'etre," a watchdog noted.
Furthermore, Stanford had plans to construct a time machine known as "the Hilarion Accelerator." He needed funding to get this done, of course.
"In a tape-recorded lecture to the annual AUM membership conference on August 24, 1974, Stanford told his followers that 'the Accelerator' would allow spiritually competent subjects to teleport physically from one place to another, but also to PHYSICALLY transport their bodies BACK IN TIME," remarked one who researched this gentleman.

Its a pity you didnt have one of these devices Chris, you could have teleported that blueberry pie right over, piping hot

FROM DANIEL H. HARRIS, Ph.D., MARCH 2, 2001:

....After receiving my Ph.D. in astronomy in 1976, from the University of Arizona, I looked for work in astronomy, and found none. And being in serious need, I took a job again doing UFO research. I had mostly forgotten my encounters with the UFO cults, nearly twenty years earlier.
Then in 1977 I came face to face with the cults, all over again. Noted UFO researcher, and psychic, Ray Stanford, asked me to come to work for him. The organization operated out of a modern office building, in central Austin Texas, and there was no talk of cultic topics, only what, at that time, to me seemed to be serious UFO investigative work and their need for a credible scientist to do the analysis of their many instrumented UFO recordings. I later learned of Stanford's long time contactee cult activities.
So in August, 1977 (until December 1978) I began work for the Association for the Understanding of Man, informally called AUM, in Austin Texas. AUM was the promoter of the trance medium activities of Ray Stanford, and the research of his brother, Rex Stanford, Ph.D. psychologist, who was then doing ESP research in their offices. I learned later that AUM was financed partly by selling transcripts of the trance medium readings of Ray Stanford.
I was then incredibly naive and open to occultic influence at the time. I became the Research Director, of their instrumented UFO observatory, and investigating activities, known as Project Starlight International, or PSI for short. At the Project Starlight remote UFO observing location near Lake Travis, PSI observers said they saw things, but just as it was in the 1950's, when I looked I saw nothing. These expectant, hopeful, persons were having delusions.

Ray Stanford's Background

This field is chock a block full of frauds who have "impressed" people.

Chris's endorsment aside, the far greater balance of probability makes me think (and clearly i am not alone in this view) That its more likely this guy is a fraud than the real deal.
And while i take TO's point that we all do things in our youth that we later no longer subscribe to, when you add the history to the current scenario of i have this great footage, but i wont show you. It all boils down to a scenario that is highly suspect imo.

My meltdown yesterday was about being told i was close to being banned (on thin ice) for daring to express an opinion that while contrary to Chris's is not an uncommon one.

I wont be bullied into agreeing with chris about ray, Id rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

And i reiterate if someone like Stephen greer or richard theilmann had made the same claims, the chorus of "BS" would be unanimous

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

With Respect Gene, being impressed isnt proof of anything and doesnt count for much.

But, perhaps inclusion for permanent display in the Smithsonian's Natural History Museum counts for something?
References:
Stanford, R., Weishampel, D., & Deleon, V. (2011). The First Hatchling Dinosaur Reported from the Eastern United States: Propanoplosaurus marylandicus (Dinosauria: Ankylosauria) from the Early Cretaceous of Maryland, U.S.A. Journal of Paleontology, 85 (5), 916-924 DOI: 10.1666/10-113.1

The man has re-framed what science thought they knew about east-coast dinosauria and literally dictated a re-writing of the book. Ask his co-author Dr. David Weishampl (editor of The Dinosauria textbook) what he thinks of Ray's observational acuity and analytical abilities. This inclusion into the Smithsonian is well-deserved acknowledgment of Ray Stanford for his dino-track "hobby." And it should be a wakeup call to the Ufoe boo-birds. He will be the first to tell you; dino tracks are just a hobby--AAO studies is his true passion and I suspect Ray will do the same to our understanding of UFOs as he has done for east-coast paleo/dinosaur knowledge.

 

[Voyager]

But, perhaps inclusion for permanent display in the Smithsonian's Natural History Museum counts for something? The man has reframed what science thought they knew about east-coast dinosauria and totally caused a re-writing of the book. Ask his co-author Dr. David Weishampl (editor of The Dinosauria textbook) what he thinks of Ray's observational acuity and analytical abilities. This inclusion into the Smithsonian is well-deserved acknowledgment of Ray Stanford for his dino-track "hobby." And it should be a wakeup call to the boo-birds. He will be the first to tell you; AAO studies is his true passion and I suspect Ray will do the same to UFOs as he has done for east-coast paleo/dinosaur knowledge.

I vote we step into the present, and move into the future.

 

[mike]

I get that Chris, and if this were a paleontology podcast/forum we wouldnt be at odds at all over this point.

But the Topic de jour is UFO's.

Stephen Greer is an MD a physician who worked in hospitals and emergency rooms, Does that make his laser light meet and greet shows legit ?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I made the point earlier that we have to give credit where it is due for Stanford's work on dinosaur tracks, and that still stands. But just like the good he's done for science, we also can't deny that he's into a lot of bunk, like the channeling and the psychic stuff. The other day, I picked up the phone to call my mother and she was already on the line before I dialled. Was that a psychic connection? Some people here would say it was. I would call it coincidence.

I'm glad the name calling has stopped, but I do have to agree with Mike on most of his points about Stanford. What frustrates me is that this has been going on for years, in other threads, and one of Stanford's "friends" (Arthur Davlan and Dave Murphy) always hops on and talks about how great the footage is. I keep going back to the post where I was told I would be "red-faced" when I saw what he had - I'm still waiting.

Chris, I get that you've put in the work in the field, and I say that's admirable, but calling out your entire audience on not doing so was overly harsh and condescending. That would be like a band telling their audience off for not being able to play the music they listen to - not cool. Just because I am not researching these topics in the field does not mean I am not entitled to an opinion, especially since I'm well read on the subject. I may not be a "researcher," but I have been following the topic for years and my opinion has grown and transformed over the years with the various sources I have reviewed. Let's all understand that we all approach this from different sides and think of it this way: What would you say if I said I had amazing HD footage of a UFO but I wanted to hold on to it?

 

[trainedobserver]

I wont be bullied into agreeing with chris about ray, Id rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Does it get any more dramatic than that? Jeez man.

While I absolutely agree with you that the denigration of the audience is complete mistake for anyone (host or guest) associated with the Paracast show to make, it is most certainly a two-way street.

Our skepticism and criticisms have to be tempered with reasonable expectations of not only how they are to be received but what we want to achieve. Do we want to foster further discussion or shut it down? I don't know that we should ever want to shut it down. It seems counter intuitive to the purpose for being here.

My primary interest, and I think the primary interest of the majority of people listening to the show and participating in the forum, is UFOs. More to the point, I am greatly interested in Ufological history and the characters in it. Ray Stanford falls squarely into that area of interest for me.

I am still interested in what Stanford has to say with the knowledge of the issues that have been brought up thus far and I would hate to see someone else run off and excluded from the conversation. I think that is happening too much.

It isn't as though Ray has posted a link to a page that is absolute unmitigated bullshit like The Moonship UFO (which Posey G. still has up even though Mike more than destroyed the poorly researched and ridiculous claims on that page.) Ray has not been shown to make false claims about his military service or personal history like Imbrogno or Witkowski. What Ray has done is demonstrate a life-long interest and participation in the paranormal in which he has obviously grown and changed during the course of. Will Ray's data be all it is being promoted as being? We won't know until we see it. Some may choose to dismiss him from further consideration based on what we think we know so far while others may not.

We'll each have to decide for ourselves whether these characters and personalities that are featured on the Paracast and tolerated in this forum are interesting to us and act accordingly.

It is my opinion as a participant in the forum that we should recognize that a great deal of absurdity and ambiguity come with the territory. Yeah, we need to call folks on their bullshit but we have to be careful that we don't shoot ourselves in the foot in the process.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

One other thing to consider here is the fact that, while Greer is using his CSETI cult to make a living, Stanford isn't selling anything. Yes, he got involved in some wacky stuff early on, but he seems to be a pretty straight shooter these days. He has no site, no conferences or lectures to plug, no book to sell. So make of that what you will.

 

[Dave Murphy]

But just like the good he's done for science, we also can't deny that he's into a lot of bunk, like the channeling and the psychic stuff.

Actually, a lot of good science has been done on the "psychic stuff".
i.e. Dr. JB Rhine's work at Duke University, at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab and at Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, California.

Dr. Edgar Mitchell's collaborative volume "Psychic Exploration: A Challenge for Science" has contributions from dozens of tenured university professors and PhD researchers with expertise in disciplines ranging from Physics to Psychology.

Unless your mind is already made up without actually needing to read anything, I'd encourage interested individuals (this is the Paranormal Gold Standard discussion board, right?) to drop ten bucks at Amazon for a used copy, read it, then have an informed, substantive debate about the contents covered and conclusions reached by these scientists. --just a suggestion.

Psychic Exploration: A Challenge for Science - Edgar D. Mitchell, John White (red.) - Google Books

What frustrates me is that this has been going on for years, in other threads, and one of Stanford's "friends" (Arthur Davlan and Dave Murphy) always hops on and talks about how great the footage is.

To be clear, I have made the effort to visit with Stanford on several occasions while in the DC area (as I have with other researchers over the years) and have spent many hours viewing his presentation (which is computer-based) and includes high-resolution scans of film frames (some sequential) accompanied by his explanations and other data collected using magnetometers, gravimeters, lasers, cameras and film used, etc..

He has never (at least for me) gone into a closet, dusted off and old 8mm projector, propped up a screen in his living room and shown home movies... like one would of Grand Canyon vacation shots.
His presentation is not that simple and takes many hours.

I have examined some of the hematite discs from his collection (which are fascinating) and we have had far-ranging discussions on paleontology, astronomy, pre-Colombian culture and modern art (he is an accomplished painter) and is well spoken in his areas of interest. He has very strong opinions, but I've found him always to be very honest and straightforward.
A very interesting individual, for sure.

"one of Stanford's "friends" (Arthur Davlan and Dave Murphy) always hops on"

Finally, was the use of the unnecessary quotation marks to "imply" that:
a. we were not friends
b. some sort of clique
c. Stanford posting here under a pseudonym

If so, I can assure you that all are incorrect.