4/1/2012 Chris Lambright and Ray Stanford

[Voyager]

Agreed. I'm not questioning his ability. He is interested in the subject and no doubt believes the phenomenon is real. It's difficult to extract data from images outside of certain parameters. If he has a solid object with a frame of reference in the background he can reach a definite conclusion. What if it is something he has never seen firsthand, and the light or infrared signature obscures the solid object, and there is no frame of reference in the background? Moreover he does this as a sideline and doesn't posses all the latest technology available for image analysis.

 

[mike]

I'm reminded of an old hand written spreadsheet i once had to balance...... it didnt
I spent hours and hours trying to find the error, and couldnt. i was out by 2 cents

It wasnt until i asked someone else to look at it the error was spotted.
I was always going to "see" a five when it was actually a seven.

Sometimes having someone else look at the data is the only way to get to the reality.........

 

[Voyager]

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.

I'm not in any way defending Ray Stanford. Can you cite one instance where a scientific journal has published anything having to do with UFO research?

 

[Secretbanana]

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.

He's not selling anything that we know of... He could be hitting up people for "donations" for seeing his work, and we wouldn't necessarily know it, not that it makes a big difference. There are plenty of hoaxers who do it not for financial gain, but for the notoriety and attention.

And as being involved in some wacky stuff, normally I couldn't care less... But when Ray Stanford makes a big deal out of presenting his material in a "scientific way" and constantly references science and the scientific method, and at the same time has been channeling Jesus Christ and building time machines THEN it becomes relevant, don't you think?

 

[Secretbanana]

I'm not in any way defending Ray Stanford. Can you cite one instance where a scientific journal has published anything having to do with UFO research?

Yup... Applied Optics, a journal from the Optical Society of America published an article that dealt with a UFO sighting in New Zealand, as an example.

As long as the science behind the paper is solid enough, a journal would publish it. There have been plenty of UFO related articles in scientific journals, here's a fairly solid list: UFO Articles Published in Scientific Journals and Literature - UFO Evidence

Of course there is also the Journal on UFO studies, or if Stanford wanted to concentrate on the propulsion, he could publish it in an advanced physics journal. Plenty of physics journals have published papers on wormhole drives and other exotic topics. If Ray Stanford has the goods, and a theory on the drive of the UFO he supposedly has seen, there is no reason why he couldnt write a paper based around that.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I agree Mike - well nobody is infallible but Bruce would indeed be a good place to start. Having recently retired from the Navy to concentrate on his music, I'm sure he would be still willing to turn his hand to a bit of image analysis.

 

[Voyager]

I'm reminded of an old hand written spreadsheet i once had to balance...... it didnt
I spent hours and hours trying to find the error, and couldnt. i was out by 2 cents

It wasnt until i asked someone else to look at it the error was spotted.
I was always going to "see" a five when it was actually a seven.

Sometimes having someone else look at the data is the only way to get to the reality.........

Agreed. I'm not questioning his ability. He is interested in the subject and no doubt believes the phenomenon is real. It's difficult to extract data from images outside of certain parameters. If he has a solid object with a frame of reference in the background he can reach a definite conclusion. What if it is something he has never seen firsthand, and the light or infrared signature obscures the solid object, and there is no frame of reference in the background? Moreover he does this as a sideline and doesn't posses all the latest technology available for image analysis.

Bruce has already looked at some of the images. His conclusion: "A point source of light."

 

[Kieran]

Just a quick note to say that Ray is quick to publish (as he did here) the crap evidence that doesn't prove anything. Somehow that stuff doesn't have to go through his imaginary scientific protocol. It's only when it comes to the good stuff (like "motion picture film of flying saucers so close you could see through the windows"--this is a rough quote) that he holds back, citing a non-existent scientific necessity. As noted above, I asked Chris if he specifically saw that evidence and he somewhat evasively replied that he had seen "evidence".

Many quack UFO gurus did the same thing as Stanford. For instance, Warren Goetz kept his Bluebird cult going and building their saucer by promising that he had the final technical secret that would cause the craft to fly. They kept working on it, donating their time money and effort to the cause. The Bluebird (not surprisingly) stayed in the barn--and is still there, I believe.

It was telling to hear the flimsy reasons that Stanford won't release his evidence. These excuses seem to multiply:

1. Scientifically not appropriate
2. Matter of National Security
3. (From Lambright) Ray needs to be there to explain what you are seeing (!)

That last one is hilarious. Thank goodness that Darwin didn't follow the UFO genius scientific protocols or he would have never released Origin of Species!

I personally find it hard to imagine the slack-jawed gullibility necessary to accept this kind of transparent artifice.

This topic (and similarly vacuous Ted Phillips--still waiting for THAT evidence, too! I'm sure it will be out "before the end of the year" or the decade etc. etc.) is one that I have complained about often here and I won't bother you folks with any more posts on it. Calling out a sham is unfortunately frowned upon here.

I realize that these guys aren't making any money (to speak of) from this stuff. Some folks do it just for the notoriety, for the sheer joy of pretending that they are an important player in a cosmic drama.

The real evidence of quackery is there in plain sight for any reasonable person to see.

Embrace what you will.

Lance

Lance once its proven someone is a con-artist, charlatan, the Paracast community generally accepts that is the case. The majority of the posters for example here who've posted to this thread, in my estimation, would have varying beliefs in the paranormal and the topic of UFO's, but still have they not cast their doubts as you have?

I've got a suggestion maybe Ray should formulate a timetable for the release of his evidence to the public and stick to it ( Chris says he has seen this evidence and what it may be, now either Chris is pulling my chain on that or Chris is telling me and everyone the truth. Either way i am neutral at the moment i honestly can't pick a side just yet. Ray in the past was channelling Jesus like ok who does that? I'm very suspicious of anyone who believes this was actually happening ( i am literally laughing my head off right now) Ray is a few marbles short up top i think.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Really Chris? I just started this week's episode and you say I'll always find something to complain and bitch about? Thanks dude. I really don't think I'm being unreasonable here.
It's really frustrating that because we ask questions, it's called bitching.

 

[Sentry]

Following Angel's lead discussing the opening remarks of the next show along with this episode...

I was glad to see a discussion of some other UFO researchers that have withheld their findings. I wanted to add a few more to the list:
John Schuessler's Cash-Landrum investigation (concealing medical records, suppressing negative data),
Robert Bigelow's NIDS Skinwalker Ranch investigation),
MUFON's STAR team reports (reportedly withheld from their public database),
and the abuse of the privilege of using anonymous witnesses by almost everyone, including
Len Stringfield, Jacques Vallee, Annie Jacobsen, Nick Redfern...

Also, the recent handling of the Chilean Air Show films by CEEFA might fit as withholding data, too.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Following Angel's lead discussing the opening remarks of the next show along with this episode...

I was glad to see a discussion of some other UFO researchers that have withheld their findings. I wanted to add a few more to the list:
John Schuessler's Cash-Landrum investigation (concealing medical records, suppressing negative data),
Robert Bigelow's NIDS Skinwalker Ranch investigation),
MUFON's STAR team reports (reportedly withheld from their public database),
and the abuse of the privilege of using anonymous witnesses by almost everyone, including
Len Stringfield, Jacques Vallee, Annie Jacobsen, Nick Redfern...

Also, the recent handling of the Chilean Air Show films by CEEFA might fit as withholding data, too.

Re. protecting the identity of witness, I don't see a problem with that. On the contrary, many people would never speak with a given investigator if they feared their identity would be compromised, given how at the least the would suffer the pestering of the media, and at the worst they would lose their jobs or be put into prison --if they were under oath or something. Researchers need to protect their sources, or they would be deemed untrustworthy and nobody would even dare to give them the time of day.

As for the Chilean Air show films, FWIW I contacted CEFAA via e-mail, and they replied to me stating that the analysis of the videos would be posted soon at their website (cefaa.gob.cl).

(Maybe they have already done so and I'm just too dumb to find it, but lacking a 'search' option on their page doesn't help a great deal...)

If the analysis does get posted, I'll let you know, and might even do a bit of translating for you Non-Spanish Paracasters out there

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I didn't mean to derail the thread. I just thought it was funny that Chris called me out on bitching and complaining about Stanford. Let's keep talking bout Stanford here please.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

I didn't mean to derail the thread. I just thought it was funny that Chris called me out on bitching and complaining about Stanford. Let's keep talking bout Stanford here please.

Actually, I'm a bit disappointed that all the focus of the thread was put solely on Stanford, and there was no comment about Bennewitz, who I found fascinating after reading Greg Bishop's Project Beta.

In one of Radio Misterioso's archive shows Bill Moore and Greg talked about Bennewitz, and how Moore saw some weird lights that might have been the ones filmed by Bennewitz back in the 80s --or at least some of them.

Moore believed the red lights were only the taillights of the jeeps as they traveled through the winding roads circling the Manzano mountain during their night rounds.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Another very interesting article that seems pertinent to the discussion:
Academic spring: how an angry maths blog sparked a scientific revolution

The current publishing model for science is broken, argue an ever-increasing number of supporters of open access publishing, a model whereby all scientific research funded by taxpayers would be made available on the web for free.​

Expensive paywalls not only waste university funds, they say, but slow down future scientific discovery and put up barriers for interested members of the public [My emphasis], politicians and patients' groups who need access to primary research in order to exercise their democratic rights.​

Stephen Curry, a structural biologist at Imperial College London, says that scientists need to come to a new arrangement with publishers fit for the online age and that "for a long time, we've been taken for a ride and it's got ridiculous".​

​

We're talking about trying to revolutionize the world by bringing ground-breaking scientific evidence to its attention, and yet the revolution is kept on hold because it seeks to conform to the sclerotic & obsolete method in which scientific knowledge is currently shared. A method even the scientists are decrying.

Not revolutionary enough IMHO.

 

[trainedobserver]

I was glad to see a discussion of some other UFO researchers that have withheld their findings. I wanted to add a few more to the list:

The Grand Master of playing it close to the chest has to be Dr. J.L. Hynek!

 

[trainedobserver]

As for the Chilean Air show films, FWIW I contacted CEFAA via e-mail, and they replied to me stating that the analysis of the videos would be posted soon at their website (cefaa.gob.cl).

(Maybe they have already done so and I'm just too dumb to find it, but lacking a 'search' option on their page doesn't help a great deal...)

If the analysis does get posted, I'll let you know, and might even do a bit of translating for you Non-Spanish Paracasters out there.

I've seen the analysis posted somewhere and it clearly shows the object against the ground and then traveling into the sky pretty much indicating it was an insect or bird. It isn't popping up for me in Google at the moment. I'll post the link if I run across it again.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Is everyone else willing to have the pre-stanford debate Mike back and about? I am - I got a little hot over the issue too but I've got pretty good self-censorship that prevents me getting personal, if I do, haul me over the coals, I'll apologise and on we can go.
Bans, editing, leaving - no..no...no. Couple deep breaths, spliff, meditate, hit your wife ..whatever you need to calm down but do come back people.

 

[wwkirk]

I think Gene's summary of the issue in the latest Paracast Newsletter covers most bases pretty well.

 

[Infolad1]

Great show! This thread went about the way I expected though LOL

Chris, keep your head up. I know it can be "death by a thousand cuts" on here,
and that familiarity sometimes does breed contempt, but it all comes from
people's desire to know.

With that said, hopefully Mr. Stanford has a game plan in place to release his data.
To have it thoroughly reviewed & verified by qualified scientists would go a long way
towards silencing the naysayers.

It's also more than a little amusing that people disparage his history with channeling,
and other displays of psychism.

Everyone's "psychic". The reality of the matter is that most instances of psychism are
considered mundane "coincidence", such as Angel's phone incident with his mom, and
don't register to people as a psychic episode. Most telepathic, telekinetic, etc. instances
are of a "micro" not "macro" level.

From Chris's anecdotal stories, Ray may possibly have psychical ability. Unfortunately, most
Westerner's Gong- Fu ability isn't very high, so it doesn't tend to be very consistent.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that anyone with sufficient training can "channel", "possess", & "carry" various entities & archetypes of various levels of intellect, ability, and morality.

Various cultures around the world have done it since time immemorial. Our culture, unfortunately, not only has no knowledge of these realities, they tend to arrogantly discount
anything that doesn't fit into their "4% Universe" paradigm. Jung tried to inform people of the way reality works in his later years, but was basically blown off as getting senile.

Now just because people can channel, doesn't mean what they're channeling is true. Like most things in life, 90% of most channeled information is crap. Most people's Gong-Fu level is low. So they tend to only contact low level beings. And theses beings tend to lie and screw around with humans for their own amusement. Just because you're talking to an " Ascended Master" doesn't mean your leg isn't being pulled.

You also have to keep in mind that there are quite a few thought forms ("Tulpas", Schema, etc.) running around . There probably is a tulpa running around that thinks it's Jesus Christ. That can appear to people, and heal them, looking like Robert Powell You're talking about the combined thought power of millions of Catholics. Of course something can show up.
I'm more than certain the people who started these belief systems figured this one out.

So when someone says they channeled Jesus Christ, don't be so flippant in your reply.

More things in heaven and earth, Horatio indeed!

 

[boomerang]

[previous post deleted]

Ouch! I just took the time to read over previous posts more closely and have decided to edit my previous 2 cents worth lest the flames be stoked even slightly. The heat to light ratio is a little on the high side.