4/1/2012 Chris Lambright and Ray Stanford

[Goggs Mackay]

I am really unsure as to exactly where Ray Stanford stands. At one point he is saying he does not care about making any money from patents and military/aerospace applications but he acts as if he is an inventor terrified of people finding out his new secret?
I don't know the man but really - most people in this field would be shouting from every rooftop that they 'have the good shit' but not here, with this guy. I really don't know.
Perhaps there is something in all this that he is prevented from putting this out yet?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

We'll keep pushing him, OK?

 

[red_pill_junkie]

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

Authority in one field does not grant you expertise in another. Isn't that what we always tell debunkers who are very proficient in their careers --astronomers, biologists, stage magicians-- but then think skepticism is an honorary degree in Everythingology?

So, I get it. Stanford won't release his material, which for all we know might be ground-breaking, but won't be breaking any grounds until it's finally published.

Right now this reminds me of Charles Darwin. He was also sitting on very ground-breaking scientific material, but since he knew it would unleash a lot of controversy, he wasn't in any rush to make it public.

It wasn't until he knew a competitor was about to publish a rather similar theory to his, than he decided to forgo of his original hesitation and rushed to print The Origin of Species. Had he not done so the world would have not benefited from his scientific insight; because it doesn't matter how amazing your theories or experiments are, if it doesn't reach enough people in order to cause a true Paradigm shift in society.

Perhaps it's the problem that, unlike Darwin, Stanford doesn't really have any other competitors trying to do real science in Ufology. That's why he can afford the luxury to sit on his evidence for decades --to the detriment of the UFO field, and perhaps the whole of humanity :-/

 

[Angel of Ioren]

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



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.

Maybe, but you do come off sounding like a sock puppet. If not, a really close friend. It's just an observation, but I'm not psychic so I can't be sure.

 

[Kim323]

I just ordered Dr. Mitchell's book Psychic Exploration: A Challenge for Science. I'll also look into Dr. Rhine's research. So, thank you for the leads, Dave Murphy. And, by the way, Jessica Utts, a professor of statistics at the University of California, Davis (she's now at another UC campus) has studied and written about psychic stuff, and I've read her articles. And, there's a professor at the University of Maryland, Dr. Stephen E. Braude, whom I've heard on podcasts in fact, who's written a book entitled The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations. I haven't read that book, but think I will. He's an interesting speaker, and I've heard him on two podcasts. He speaks convincingly, and notes the fact that as a professor at a major university studying and researching stuff along these lines, it's interesting to his career! Kim

 

[red_pill_junkie]

I just ordered Dr. Mitchell's book Psychic Exploration: A Challenge for Science. I'll also look into Dr. Rhine's research. So, thank you for the leads, Dave Murphy. And, by the way, Jessica Utts, a professor of statistics at the University of California, Davis (she's now at another UC campus) has studied and written about psychic stuff, and I've read her articles. And, there's a professor at the University of Maryland, Dr. Stephen E. Braude, whom I've heard on podcasts in fact, who's written a book entitled The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations. I haven't read that book, but think I will. He's an interesting speaker, and I've heard him on two podcasts. He speaks convincingly, and notes the fact that as a professor at a major university studying and researching stuff along these lines, it's interesting to his career! Kim

I haven't read Braude's book, but I listened to a podcast by Jeffrey Kripal where he had Braude as guest.

I think you'll like to listen to it [Link] I found it highly informative, and damn funny too!

 

[mike]

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

Perhaps i should have referenced Star treks Klingons as the source of the meme

The gestalt being, id rather be banned as Chris threatened to do to me, than be bullied into submission regards my views on stanford.

Chris claims "science"

But when i read this stuff

"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,"

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.

I'm reminded more of $cientology than science.

Maybe you have to be OT 7 to see the footage

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Perhaps i should have referenced Star treks Klingons as the source of the meme

Um, your Klingon meme was actually a phrase said by Emiliano Zapata, señor.

And you don't want to make him angry... dontcha?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I suppose in a way it's good a show can bring out such vociferous opposition in views on the same topic. Am I the only member who feels it's gotten a little personal on the stances?
The data, the data......attack the data, not the person. I make that mistake too of course, being human but on the topic of whether Ray Stanford should release all his data freely.. I am starting to see a little from Ray's point of view, which was not the case a few days ago. Allow me to explain.

I am just imagining myself years ahead of now, with a body of work done by me and owned by me. Absolutely disregarding the public's wishes to see it all, it is mine and for whatever reason, I am concerned that it may be taken out of context, that it will be used to villify me, may in no-way actually help me except my standing in the eyes of people I will never meet. It is up to me who to dispose of my work. The public often dredges up unfinished works by famous authors because the thought of some scrap of their genius not being enjoyed is too much, it is often resulting in poor or abandoned work brought out anyway, when it does the author no real good in standing amongst their readers. In this way I understand the public (and my own) need to see this stuff (Ray's photo's) - because it feels like he is withholding another Trent- Oregon photo, or the Brazilian Navy photos or that one from altitude over Costa Rica. It feels like an absolute classic piece of Ufology evidence it being kept from us......
But. The fact is, Ray owns the stuff. He can do with it as he pleases.
But. But. (double but!) - I feel if he really only wants peer scientific review to take place before a public free-for-all then perhaps he should not speak about the data on such places as the Paracast. I'm not saying he has no right to be interviewed on Podcasts etc but I personally ask Ray - If I cannot see it and 99.9999% of the audience cannot see it, then maybe keep it to yourself - it really is annoying for us who are not against you as a person - we are just desperate to have more evidence of good quality about the UFO subject!

We are mere mortals Ray - it is really hard to sit back hearing you have some really good evidence man! I get you are not interested in guys like me seeing it but guys and gals like me listen to the Paracast - Paracast guests don't get free passes (Gene - you did your coaxing no doubt about it and we thank you for that) but on the evidence side it feels like Ray 'got a pass'.

I really would hate anyone feeling they need to leave the forum and take this whole argument personally - shit happens and we disagree but I for one wanna see the same faces (and new ones) disagreeing about lots more shit in the coming years.

Mike - your comment about Ray's stuff being indistinguishable from a hoax is actually correct. For us who have not seen the evidence.
So Chris, I don't think at any point Mike means that he thinks this is all a hoax. But without everyone seeing the data - for us, it is no more real than the Billy Meier contacts. For us. Chris, I am jealous you have seen the data or some of it - I know you consider Ray a mentor and friend and all that is great and part of your life - I'm not sure you really get what it feels like to be on this side of the denial with all due respect?

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Once again, it comes down to the vicious cycle I wrote about on my very first comment in this thread.

From what I gathered of the intro in this week's new show, Ray needs a scientist with good-enough credentials to back his research in order to submit it for peer-review. That's practically professional suicide for anyone who's not a very well-established scientist and is afraid to lose tenure. I'm no scientist but from what I've read it's a highly ruthless and competitive world in which careers take decades to make --and can be unmade in less than a week...

With his paleontology work such insurmountable measures are not needed because there's actual physical evidence --i.e. the dinosaur bones that can be analyzed by academics and museum staffs.

But with Ufology? basically Ray needs nothing short of a Nobel laureate to pull it off. Someone who has nothing to lose and is free to devote its remaining career with outré stuff considered heretical by Academia.

Or maybe Myrabo will perfect his 'light-craft' design and publicly endorse Stan by stating --on the record-- that he solved many of the practical problems by reviewing those films taken by Project Starlight. But until that happens, I don't think he would risk his project's funding.

Are there alternatives to peer-reviewed publishing? I ask this: why wasn't Stanford approached by the scientists who elaborated the Cometa project? That paper is still regarded as one of the best attempts to gather solid evidence of the reality of UFOs. If I'm not mistaken, the report included the famous Costa Rica aerial photograph.

Maybe they could have used a couple of Ray's photos, too.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Precisely.

 

[mike]

We'll keep pushing him, OK?

It would be one heck of a coup for the Paracast, If its as good as promised you'd go down in history as the site that broke the news..................

 

[mike]

Holy sneck, its an easter miracle , he is risen.......

Welcome back

 

[SonofaSkunk]

The data, the data......attack the data, not the person.

Ok..............

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Found this mid-80s article from Omni magazine --what a great mag that was!-- in which they briefly mention Ray (page 110).

 

[Polterwurst]

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

Well, if I try to be perfectly sober about it, that is a good description of what I'm doing here (posting my unresearched thoughts under a pseudonym), so I can't really be insulted by that.

To be honest, I would like that to be different, I really want to look into that stuff and let people know that "yes, I think there really is something to that crazy stuff, believe it or not", but if you go public with your research, if you publish books and articles under your own name, that really means you won't ever be able to do something else professionally anymore (at least without changing your identity and moving to another part of the country). It means that you'll be ridiculed and attacked, that you will lose friends, that your income depends only on what you do in that field. I don't know if it's still that bad in the US, but where I live, that's just the way it is.If I put an ad in the newspaper tomorrow to ask people for their unusual experiences, because I want to investigate them and maybe write a book or something, that would be it socially and professionally.
No other options anymore.

(Hm..so maybe no wonder that some people in that field just try to make a buck at any cost...?)

As much as I want my own experiences to be heard because I think they may shed some light on things like reincarnation and may encourage others to talk about theirs, at the moment I feel I can do nothing but post anonymously in forums. And I guess there is people with similar experiences who won't even do that.

So let me be an anonymous armchair thinker until I decide it doesn't make much difference any more if people know that I think this field is worth looking into.

 

[mike]

Found this mid-80s article from Omni magazine --what a great mag that was!-- in which they briefly mention Ray (page 110).

Good find, so for three decades we have a consistant theme, as the article says

Despite the wonders of the UFO/VECTOR Curran says, Stanford never published his work, never publically demonstrated his technology, and never documented the existance of a UFO. Today with his staff and funding gone, his projects in ruin, Stanford says "hes going to become an artist"

 

[Voyager]

Once again, it comes down to the vicious cycle I wrote about on my very first comment in this thread.

From what I gathered of the intro in this week's new show, Ray needs a scientist with good-enough credentials to back his research in order to submit it for peer-review. That's practically professional suicide for anyone who's not a very well-established scientist and is afraid to lose tenure. I'm no scientist but from what I've read it's a highly ruthless and competitive world in which careers take decades to make --and can be unmade in less than a week...

With his paleontology work such insurmountable measures are not needed because there's actual physical evidence --i.e. the dinosaur bones that can be analyzed by academics and museum staffs.

But with Ufology? basically Ray needs nothing short of a Nobel laureate to pull it off. Someone who has nothing to lose and is free to devote its remaining career with outré stuff considered heretical by Academia.

Or maybe Myrabo will perfect his 'light-craft' design and publicly endorse Stan by stating --on the record-- that he solved many of the practical problems by reviewing those films taken by Project Starlight. But until that happens, I don't think he would risk his project's funding.

Are there alternatives to peer-reviewed publishing? I ask this: why wasn't Stanford approached by the scientists who elaborated the Cometa project? That paper is still regarded as one of the best attempts to gather solid evidence of the reality of UFOs. If I'm not mistaken, the report included the famous Costa Rica aerial photograph.

Maybe they could have used a couple of Ray's photos, too.

The options available for publishing serious UFO research is extremely limited. Although I have not yet completed the presentation I have been working on; I have been pondering the question of where should I publish it?
Bruce Maccabee is the only person I am aware of who is qualified and willing to analyze UFO videos or images. He has limitations. Many so-called experts in the field, such as Stephen Greer do more harm than good.

 

[mike]

Bruce is a good bloke, hes not infalible but he's one of the best.
He has made mistakes, but is also honest enough to admit them when presented with the evidence

 

[Secretbanana]

Well, Id say that the apparently close relationship between Chris and Ray Stanford explains the lack of critical questions directed at Ray on the show from Chris quarter.

(This isn't meant as an attack on Chris professionalism.)

And while Chris seems to buy into Rays claims, I'm glad to see that Gene is asking the hard questions.

There seems to be some confusion however, as to what constitutes proper science, and what doesn't, and the attempts to explain away Ray Stanfords lack of publishing with "science" are thin and lame.

A hallmark of modern, proper science is openness and verification. Does Ray Stanford's method sound open to you? Have you ever heard of any other scientist who operates like this? Who will let you see his data only if you show up in person and meet Ray's opaque criteria?

Sounds dodgy to me... Almost as dodgy as Ray Stanfords twisted version of peer review: Instead of making it freely available for anybody to critique (which would be the proper scientific method) he is apparently shopping it around to scientists of his choosing.
(What exactly does Stanford fear from making it openly available? Ridicule? Being exposed as a fraud?)

I doubt that Stanford really has anything in terms of UFO evidence (Though I'm willing to give him the benefit of doubt, and am not ready to call him an outright fraud yet) but if he really was willing to go the scientific route, this is what he could do: Either make the evidence available online for peer review, or type up a paper himself and submit it to a scientific journal. (With over 30 years of material, you'd think he'd have plenty available for a paper.).

There are a plethora of journals out there, Ray could pick and choose whether to submit it to one of the more generally oriented journals, or one specifically dealing with propulsion or physics.

(Or heck, he could publish his own journal if he would like to see a serious, scientific journal dedicated to UFO studies)

Contrary to what other have written in this thread, you don't need scientific credentials per se to submit anything to a scientific journal. As long as its written well enough and meets scientific criteria, the editor(s) would review it and publish it, if they think it warrants publication.

Once the material is in a journal, THAT'S when you're being peer reviewed, and the scientific community debates whether your idea has merit or not. You don't peer review something behind closed doors, showing it only to researchers you choose yourself.

As I've already pointed out, it's fairly straight forward to have a scientific paper published and peer reviewed, and I've yet to see a reasonable answer as to why Ray Stanford has chosen not to do this.